Why the Piper PA-28 Arrow is Extremely Well Designed

[@DGraham-i3y]

Ha. I loved my PA 28-151. Cheap to keep, cheap to run, and fun in turbulence. What a sweet trainer.

[@garyyoung4074]

My 1974 Arrow 2 was a pleasure to fly and maintain. Every annual I upped the speed a bit with gap seals and other speed mods. None of these detracted from useful load much, but stall/take off performance greatly improved. Would flight plan for 143 kts and be right on target. The Leopresti cowl and one piece thicker wind screen were all that were left to install when I sold her. 150 kts is possible at 75% I believe if you get a run out one and rebuild her with all the mods available. Great family personal airliner for us. No problems w/anything for 300 hrs.

[@davidcollier3604]

"High performance" is stretch for this aircraft. But it is a complex retractable suitable for pilot looking to move up more economically and build retract hours.

[@calvinnickel9995]

It’s the American definition of high performance. Anything above 200HP That’s why they made the Cessna 172XP with 195HP even though the Continental IO-360 can produce well over 200HP.

[@Kevlux86]

@@calvinnickel9995 “OVER” 200 hp. 200hp doesn’t count as High Performance, but 201 does. None of the Arrows came with an engine nameplated above 200, yes, even the Arrow IV, PA-28RT-201T, still just rated at 200 HP.

[@belizeaviators2026]

@@Kevlux86 The reason for the "1" in PA-28RT-201T instead of 200, has nothing to do with the engine...it indicates that the plane has the tapered wing instead of the older straight wing. This practice also goes for other piper single engine models. such as the PA-28-160 and PA 28-161... 160's had the "Hershey Bar wing, whereas the 161's had the tapered wing. I am usually surprised how many people have come to me insisting the pa28-201 is an HP aircraft..... and asking for a high performance endorsement in it...

[@Kevlux86]

@@belizeaviators2026 yes yes exactly! (Re-read my comment, you'll see what I was/wasn't saying :) )

[@rogersmart1766]

Arrows are only “Complex” NOT HIGH PERFORMANCE

[@geoffspitfire5160]

Many hours in a 1974 Arrow II 200 ZK-EBE. I always found it comfortable stable and easy to fly. At 23/24 settling it cruised at 125k no speed king but got you to where you were going without any drama.

[@ericruggles4631]

My mother flew an Arrow in the 1976 Powder Puff Derby. Was in the top 10 the first day, finished 30th out of about 200 planes . Hights finshing rookie in the field. I miss her greatly.

[@karrpilot7092]

I used to fly a Warrior with the 160 hp engine. It was a slug. But it handled well, was easy to fly, and the heater worked better than any Cessna I have flown. The single door is an issue. But from an operating standpoint, I liked it better than the Cessnas. And not having to get a ladder to fuel it is a wonderful thing.

[@iansinclair521]

My beloved birdy was a '72 Arrow II. Hershey bar wing and all. What you say about them is all true enough -- but with a twist. With a little bit of care on rigging, the Arrow II has some of the best harmonized and responsive controls of any non-aerobatic general aviation bird, and is just plain sweet to fly. And I've flown a lot of different ones!

[@jakesimpson6365]

To give the Arrow some credit on climb performance, my '69 200 with the three blade Hartzell will climb at well over 700fpm at max gross weight on a warmer day. It's definitely economical and cruises around 130kt at 9gph. Great video!

[@DWBurns]

I have a 1973 with a new engine, 120 hours, maybe a few extra horses in the barn. Full fuel 50 gallons, 2 men in front, me 245 my friend 180 flying at 87mph it did 1500 feet all the way to 4000 feet. It was uncomfortable to climb like that. I climb at 100-105 to get 500-750 fpm.

[@peacewind-aero]

I just bought a '69 200. It also has the triblade Hartzell. The thing is a rocket on climb. Got it as a timebuilder. I suspect I will love it more than the Cessnas Ive flown.

[@tomdavis1694]

Flew an Arrow out of KBED for approx 100hrs, had Robertson STOL kit and performed its mission very well

[@stevemino142]

The Cessna 180 is also a good value airplane as well I own 2 of them a 1955 model and a 1968 model H the 470 265 hp engine in the 68 model was just recently rebuilt and the 55 model has a conversion 540B continental 285 HP both have many thousands of air time on them and in excellent condition... good video

[@davidhofman4341]

I used to own PA28R 31063. It is a 1968 serial number. The plane was certified January 1970. The control yoke AD does not apply. I was an IA in the FAA FISDO that included Williamsport,Pa. The FAA said the airplane could have been used for the 180hp turbo test bed or for other items to be tested. There were several unused connectors under the pilots yoke. Flew it to Williamsport for Sentimental Journey, but never got any answers.

[@woutersijtsma1232]

31063 was produced in 1969 as a 180hp aircraft. The one that was used for turbo testing was 30337. 30482 was used for testing the 200hp engine.

[@bernardanderson3758]

The Piper Arrows are still available depending on no damage history and if it was a flight school commercial trainer then you might get it if the price is right

[@jimb4090]

Got my Bellanca Super Viking for $46k in 2008. 175kt cruise, 10gph lean of peak at 12k, calm. At today's Arrow price could still buy 2 Vikings.

[@woutersijtsma1232]

True, but the Arrow doesn't have wood rotting away 🙂

[@JamesLangford-Cosslett]

Interesting video, but I would like to point out a quick correction. You mention that the Arrow III came along in 1977 with the semi-tapered wing which a actually copy of the 140 wing. This incorrect. The the PA28-140 never had a tapered wing. It was the Piper Warrior - PA28-151 that had the semi-tapered wing, which the the Archer and the Arrow would have. All the designations of the semi-tapered wing had a 1 added to their designation, for example when the Piper added the semi-tapered wing to the Arrow it became the PA-28-201, the Arrow with the straight wing was the PA-28-200. The Archer with the straight wing was the PA-28-180 which became the PA-28-181 when the semi-tapered wing was added. The same with all the Piper single engine aircraft that adopted the semi-tapered wing. Another example is the PA-32-300 Cherokee Six became the PA-32-301 Saratoga with the semi-tapered wing.

[@_OZAV_Intnl]

... piper's are stable, durable and safe, though in the video - the narrator makes an omission to mention enough about, and that above all mentioned - is the one and only: Archer 3, which we prefer to fly around - in the Lycoming engine configuration, and with the wing area that has, at top of that - is just enormous. It's all you want on the day, for a lot of a good and stable lift :).

[@fjp3305]

Yes. The Archer is the best for your money.

[@ccrider8483]

As the video outlines, the Arrow is not the best at any one thing, but a decent compromise. It is probably best suited as a complex trainer with its constant speed prop and retractable gear. Interestingly, the T-tail models tend to be rather heavy on the yoke with regard to pitch making the traditional tail my favorite. PA 28s are really good aircraft in the "Archer/Warrior" models with tapered wings and 180-150 HP, IMHO.

[@3204clivesinclair]

Unusually never touched a high wing aircraft till after I had gained my licence. My training was done on an Arrow II. With two people, performance was OK. But 4 up, performance wasn’t exactly ‘sprightly’.

[@rickmidkiff9990]

I did all my complex airplane in a PA-28 2005M before I moved up to the Seneca II and beyond

[@RealBucketman]

I almost bought N2175F until I went through the logbooks and no only found 2 gear up landings but also discrepancies and gaps in the logs. Ended up passing on it.

[@chrisc161]

I can’t believe that you compared the Arrow to the Grumman .

[@Flatspinjim]

Why? The Grumman Tiger can keep up with, and depending on year/configuration, surpass the Arrow in performance. Without the complexity/maintenance/insurance related to a retract. Read the Aviation Consumer article on the Tiger from a few years back. They made the comparison themselves.

[@valmikabeneteau7229]

I bought an Arrpw 4 in 1981 for 42K and sold it in 1991 for 42K. Wish I still had it. probably worth over 100K now. Anybody know if 2110W is for sale?

[@Defender9432]

Didn’t some arrows have a continental O-360 engine?

[@jessegarman7899]

The turbo Arrows had a Continental six cylinder TSIO-360. I had a fixed wastegate and no intercooler which led to sorter longevity. All other varients were a 4 cylinder Lycoming.

[@Defender9432]

@@jessegarman7899 ah, thanks for the clarification. I was only asking because I work on one and it had that engine

[@txkflier]

The front seat passenger must enter last, and they must exit first. Then the pilot can exit, but the back seat passengers usually exit before the pilot. Our 1972 Cherokee Arrow II was great. It was way better than anything that was less expensive..

[@yohanauguuste]

Certainly does not automatically extend the gear. It will give an alarm.

[@txkflier]

No, it will actually drop the gear automatically unless the override lever is pulled up..

[@yohanauguuste]

@@txkflier Turns out you are right. There is an autoextend feature i had never heard of before.

[@txkflier]

@@yohanauguuste I have no reason to lie. I've had the gear drop automatically when I was about to turn base after forgetting to lower the gear on downwind. I've also had the gear refuse to retract after takeoff because I was climbing too slowly. This was in a 1972 Cherokee Arrow II in about 1976..

[@yohanauguuste]

@@txkflier I have only flown Pipers newer retracts. Never heard of the system. Certainly is cool. What was your experience. Beneficial or a nuisance?

[@txkflier]

@@yohanauguuste Well, it kept me from hearing the sound of scraping metal once. And there was one time where an idiot in a Grumman American went silent on the radio after passing over the windsock and then did right traffic at an uncontrolled airport. I assumed he was following me since I was already on downwind, but I found myself beside him as I turned final. To get the gear up and go around, I had to pull up the override lever between the seats. Had I forgotten to lower the gear on the next approach, it wouldn't have dropped out.

[@bernardanderson3758]

The Musketeers are moving faster than I expected and cheaper than a Piper Arrow

[@shy8170]

What’s the name of the piper that’s small ?

[@chrisanderson1543]

An Archer is four knots slower and saves a lot of expense and aggravation!!

[@txkflier]

There ain't no way an Archer is only 4 knots slower than an Arrow II. It's dragging the gear and has less horsepower..

[@tomedgar4375]

Great trainer, but high performance? NO. I have 25 hours in am Arrow II, 125 knots on its best day. I’d rather buy the Archer, more bang for the buck.

[@fjp3305]

I would rather get an Archer. Not much slower, but less complexity, maintenance, fuel and money. It's a very nice single engine piston airplane.

[@bobwilson758]

Parts dept ? Yes , I would like a new wing spar please …. Hello ? 😮 😢

[@briank3754]

I think it’s a sexy flyer! A lot better looking than anything Cessna is making. Can’t stand those ugly high wings and struts. Had to endure 100 hours in a Cessna 172 before I got into a real plane and did my multi engine rating in a Seneca. Don’t get me wrong the Cessnas have their purpose, but flying a sleek low wing plane is a much better experience. I’m in the market now and will likely be getting an Arrow. 135 knot airplane for $30k less than an equivalent 172 slugging along at 110.

[@fjp3305]

Why don't you get an Archer?

[@briank3754]

@@fjp3305 because they are $30k more.

[@fjp3305]

@@briank3754 $30k more than an Arrow?

[@briank3754]

@@fjp3305 I know, it shocked me too. Plane prices are all over the place. Cheapest Archer right now on Trade a Plane is about $100k. I’ve been shopping for a year and have had to tell myself that paying $60k for a Cherokee 140 is the norm. If I want one that doesn’t have a run out engine. Not sure how close you follow the market, but most of the SE non-complex Pipers and Cessna have more than doubled since 2020. I can get a decent long body Mooney for around $80k and a beat up mid 70s 172 is the same price. I have my high performance and complex so might as well get something more capable for less money.

[@063317Art]

Piper PA28R200 is not a high performance aircraft, it is only a complex aircraft. It has to be over 200hp to be high performance. There for being only 200hp does not qualify it as high performance

[@ismaelsouza21]

Very nice plane. The consumption data is not accurate. It burns less than this.

[@elmin2323]

But a bonanza 😊

[@bernardanderson3758]

The T-Tails models aren’t that good when it comes to approach to landing to flare and the turbo arrow conventional tail has great performance at high altitude above 10,000 feet

[@mikemazzola6595]

$150,000 for my Arrow III? I had better up the hull insurance, AGAIN!

[@a320nick]

Why was the narrator a Diabetes Doctor last month? He sounds like he knows as much about aeroplanes as he dies about diabetes.

[@justinjrj]

They aren’t high performance (please fix the title)

[@txkflier]

165 mph ain't too shabby..

[@justinjrj]

@@txkflier Still not high performance

[@justinjrj]

@@txkflier Also its more like 145 mph

[@txkflier]

@@justinjrj 144 knots = 165 mph

[@justinjrj]

@@txkflier I did all of Commercial and CFI in an arrow I know what I'm talking about. Its not that fast

[@kevinyoung8651]

Speak English much? Piper don't get enough credit.