Piper Arrow maintenance costs??
Bernie Hirsch
I'm considering purchase of a Piper Arrow, circa 1969-1971, 200HP, non-turbo.
Any words of wisdom before I take the plunge? I've been looking at Piper
180's, but for the money, it seems like the Arrow might be a better investment
for the long run. How much extra maintenance cost for the variable pitch
prop, higher compression engine, and retract gear?
I'm planning to do instrument training, some 200-400 mile four adult pleasure
trips. Maybe 100-125 hours/year. I would greatly appreciate your input
before I make my decision (next couple of weeks).
mar...@ll.mit.edu
Venture Aviation has owned and operated a 1978 Arrow III for about 3.5
years. Our budget is two part, fixed and variable, for five IFR pilots.
The fixed part is about $375/month total monthly including tiedown,
insurance, a small part of depreciation, some allowance for the annual
(not all of it), and some registration fees. The variable part is $55
per tach hour, including fuel, oil, engine set aside, maintenance, and
the majority of the depreciation. We combine to fly about 175-200 hours
per year total.
I don't know how to answer your questions directly, as I've never owned
a 180, but variable prop has a gov element which requires attention
every 1500 hours, perhaps $1K, and prop hub overhauls, somewhat more but
I can't remember exact numbers. Gear can be quite expensive depending
upon how it was treated previously -- if they've only spent $100 on gear
work in the last ten years, it's a good bet you'll be picking up the tab
for more. Compression is similar to other 4 cyl Lycoming and not a
particular worry.
Our airplane routinely does 300-500 mile trips, and has gone from Boston
to New Orleans and Florida, and all the way to France (before our
time).
-*- Doug -*-
=======
James M. Knox
>I'm planning to do instrument training, some 200-400 mile four adult pleasure
>trips. Maybe 100-125 hours/year. I would greatly appreciate your input
>before I make my decision (next couple of weeks).
Opinions are like... well, let's just say that everyone has one.
Personally, I *really* like the Arrow line as a great compromise between the
brand new 1996 Beech B36TC (with all the leather trim, natch) that we would
like, and the tired old C-172 that is on the rental line.
I moved up to a PA28R-201T (low tail, turbo-charged) Arrow from a Piper
Warrior II and am very happy. That Warrior was about as reliable and honest a
plane as they came, but it has minimal useful load, and in a headwind the cars
on the ground seemed to stay in one spot below me. <G>
As for cost - yes, annuals will cost a little more. They have to do a retract
test, and of course you have a more complex prop and govenor to go wrong
(about the only thing on a fixed pitch prop that can go wrong is to throw a
blade! <G>).
The engine is rock solid, so I wouldn't worry about that.
I would figure the Arrow would add perhaps $300 per year over the cost of a
fixed-gear, fixed-prop Cherokee **all other things being equal**. In other
words, this is probably minor compared to the overall condition of the plane
at the time you buy it.
jmk
Reece R. Pollack
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:37:30 GMT, hir...@iquest.net (Bernie Hirsch)
wrote:
>I'm considering purchase of a Piper Arrow, circa 1969-1971, 200HP, non-turbo.
>Any words of wisdom before I take the plunge? I've been looking at Piper
>180's, but for the money, it seems like the Arrow might be a better investment
>for the long run. How much extra maintenance cost for the variable pitch
>prop, higher compression engine, and retract gear?
I own half of a 1977 Arrow III, which is similar but not identical to
the Arrow I (or is it a II?) you're considering.
The IO-360-C1C used in the older Arrows may have a shorter TBO than
the O-360 used in the fixed gear models, although the necessary mods
may have been done during an overhaul. The IO-360-C1C6 in the later
models has the same TBO as the O-360s, and has better fuel efficiency
due to the fuel injection. I don't think fuel injection adds much if
anything to the maintenance costs.
Retractable gear will definitely cost some money, if only in higher
insurance costs. The annual will cost a bit more than a similar fixed
gear plane, although if the gear has been well maintained it won't be
too much more. Much of our maintenance expenses in the past year have
been gear related (gear pump, retraction push-rod bearings, side-brace
pivot assembly), but most of the old parts were original (18 years and
4000 hours old). Our mechanic went through the gear system pretty
thoroughly at our last annual, and he didn't find anything worth
noting.
A prop overhaul (5 year, 2000 hr TBO) will run you about $1200,
assuming nothing major is defective. Blades are expensive, around
$2000 each for the McCauley on my Arrow, but should last as long as a
fixed-pitch prop would.
Our Arrow III has some speed mods (flap and aileron gap seals, flap
hinge fairings, and the LoPresti "speed spats"), and cruises at about
143kts TAS at 75%. Fuel burn is just a little more than an Archer II
which would be about 15-20kts slower. Useful load is just a fraction
under 1000 lbs.
>I'm planning to do instrument training, some 200-400 mile four adult pleasure
>trips. Maybe 100-125 hours/year. I would greatly appreciate your input
>before I make my decision (next couple of weeks).
The Arrow III is a nice instrument platform. I'm not in a position to
comment authoritatively on the hershey-bar models, but I suspect
they're about the same. An acquaintence of mine is doing his
instrument rating in an Arrow II and I haven't heard any complaints.
Four adults and baggage would put a serious crimp in the fuel load. If
you fill the tanks to the tabs you'll have about 3 hrs of fuel at 12
gph, but that's 216 lbs of fuel. If you have 1000 lbs useful load,
you're left with 784 lbs for passengers and baggage. This is pretty
normal for 4-place aircraft. A fixed gear plane might have more useful
load (all that gear stuff adds weight) but won't go as far on the same
fuel.
It may seem obvious, but if you're a newcomer to complex aircraft a
thorough inspection by a competent, objective mechanic is an absolute
necessity. If the mechanic doesn't say all good things, turn around
and walk away. If everything looks good, expect to spend another 10%
above the purchase price to bring the plane up to your personal
standards.
--
Reece R. Pollack
CP-ASMEL-IA -- N1707H Piper Arrow III (based GAI)
James Sleigh
Bernie Hirsch (hir...@iquest.net) wrote:
: I'm considering purchase of a Piper Arrow, circa 1969-1971, 200HP, non-turbo.
: Any words of wisdom before I take the plunge? I've been looking at Piper
Sure. Don't be mad when I pass you in a fixed pitch, fixed gear Grumman
Tiger while burning less gas!
A friend flew his Tiger up the New York VFR corordor this weekend. As
he passed two Skyhawks flying formation, he called them and they
responded that they had visual contact. When he called the Arrow
to advise him he'd be passing on the right, the Arrow pilot, who
had been talking, was mysteriously quiet...
An Arrow will simply not exceed an AA-5B in cost, value or performance.
James Sleigh
Tony P
Aw, go ahead and get the Arrow, but check out the plane first for
good maintenance! (see below for maintenance comments)
About that Grumman guy who thought he passed an Arrow: Funny,
because I've passed a lot of Tigers with those funny feet hanging down
there. Look kinda goofy and I always kinda wonder if Bede was looking
for a sort of "chickenhawk" effect : ) I tend to duck when they fly
over (and I love to watch the guys bail them out in the rain, too.)
A tired Arrow without any mods, bristling antennae and heavy is
surely going to be passed by a lot of things. One with a strong engine,
some attention paid to drag-reduction and _most important_ without the
old "round" wingtips is going to pass that Grumman pretty easily I think
(mine will anyway).
Book says 162 mph cruise. With Metcoaire wingtips (best thing I
ever did) I get a _true_ 167 mph (don't ask me knots -- it's a '68 for
God's sake!). That's the _180 h.p._ which, incidentally, seems to also
pass the heavier 200's But then I fly light, with just me and full tanks
(though I'm 1.5 FAA people)[the plane leans until I burn off some fuel in
the left tank :) ]
On maintenance, let me be kind. The IO-360 Lyc is a workhorse,
but the 200 h.p. will usually get a top before TBO. Keep an eye on the
exhaust flange and don't let a leak start, avoid erosion (use hitemp RTV
on the seal, they tell me) The 180 is easier to tend, and most I know get
equal performance (2 mph or so higher speed, a few pounds more gross
weight, but almost equally more empty weight, as I recall and that's per
the book -- real world may not be any better at all.) The Fuel
injection is essentially trouble-free in my experience and saves carb
heat problems. Leaning is pretty strightforward.
The landing gear are a maintenance item. There's an A.D. on the
main gear side bracket stud (crack inspection on a 9/16 or 5/8" sort of
bolt 4" long), another on the front gear (minor mods and inspection, but
time-consuming). All of the gear are full of little bushings and MS
bolts, some fractionally oversized and custom-fitted. They tend to wear
and get loose, so LUBE THEM WELL AND FREQUENTLY AND DON'T LET THOSE
LITTLE BUGGERS FREEZE UP AND STRETCH THE HOLE!! watch for little
bushings turning instead of the pin or bolt. you'll be fine if you get
used to looking at the gear. Once a year isn't enough, especially on an
airplane that lives outdoors.
I keep an eye out for extra hydraulic cylinders, gear parts, etc
and have a whole set of spares so I'm good into the next decade (spent
all of $1500 for a full set of legs and another bunch of spares to go
with them, $25 for actuator cylinders, etc. etc. -- you can spend that on
one repair if you don't have a good parts source or spares).
There's another AD on the oil-pump impeller blades (like all of
the Lyc 320's & 360's I think) another on the rear wing-spar (all PA-28's
I think). There's another on the flap-handle (ditto). None of these is
a ballbuster except the oil-pump (accessory case has to come off, I
guess) but be sure they're all done and well, and that there were no
surprises.
You get lucky on the crank inspection, which doesn't apply to the
constant-speed props. The Hartzell AD for 500-hr. teardown has been
removed, but still a prop overhaul is expensive (I paid $900+ and they
tell me it's quite a bit more now). Add a good $500/yr to maintenance
over and above a fixed-gear PA28 (which are cheap and easy).
If you are handy and can understand the functioning of the gear,
I'd get another Arrow without hesitation. If you're borderline on
maintenance expense coverage, get the Grumman and carry fewer people and
noe with big shoulders or butts.
Personally, I know this landing gear intimately, and I can tell
when there's the slightest bit of slack or wear, and I can show an A&P
how ti fix or adjust it. I'm lucky enough to have a mechanic who would
hire me as an assitant if I'd work for him so my gear are always like
new.
Get some dual time if you haven't. There's a difference between
the old "hershey bar" wing and the tapered wing. The old one lands with
a thud (Metcoaire tips halp _a lot_. There's a trip to stepping it down
and keeping the nose gear up; don't float it like a Cessna or you'll stop
flying a bit higher than you planned (exciting and not good for those
gear, remember).
Go for it.
--
"Do not despair -- not even over the fact that you do not despair." --
Kafka