Piper Arrow Vs. Cessna 172RG

[captjim]

Hi!

Do NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!!!!

After having been to 5 airline interviews, the ALL ask about Airplane Multi-Engine time!!!

If you're flying and airplane, that's good. If it's NOT MULTI, they don't care if it's a Meridian (single turbine, high performance), or it's a Piper Cub.

Save your money and fly a 152/172/Warrier/Mooney Cadet, etc. As far as the airlines go, they don't care. It's easy to get your high performance sign-off afterward, if you need it-one flight with a flight instructor and you're good to go.

The only SE time that will help is an F-16, or similiar SE fighter, and you can't afford the hourly cost for one of those!

Good luck with your aviation career. I'm proof that if you stick with it, good things can happen!

Cliff
GB,WI

I agree, go with the cheapest. Both aircraft have there benifits, but the cheapest would prevail if I were you. I trained in cessnas almost exclusively and when the time came to fly something different there really wasent anything unexpected. To me pipers were easier to fly and land. As a flight instructor I perfered my students to train in cessnas as opposed pipers, they just seemed more demanding of attention. Point being go with the cheapest now and take the extra money for multi time.

 

[eaglefly]

It is my understanding that a high-performance sign-off (one-time endorsement) can be acheived by demonstrating profiecency in EITHER an a/c with more than 200 hp OR one with retractable landing gear, flaps and a controllable-pitch propeller (obviously most FBO'S would require a certain amount of retractable experience if you obtained this one-time endorsement in a high-performance fixed gear).

It's been a while since I've instructed (1987), so the rules may have changed, but thats the way it used to be.

 

[ILLINI]

eaglefly-

It used to be that the complex and high performance endorsements were one in the same and there was no requirement for horsepower. I don't remember exactly when the horsepower requirement was introduced, but I think it was in the early 90's sometime. The complex and high performance were seperated and the "more than 200 horsepower" requirement for the high performance was added in. There were many flight schools that used the Piper Arrow or Mooney, which only had 200 HP, for the commercial rating which would give you the endorsement for the complex and high perf. After the HP requirement, you could only get the complex from these aircraft.

 

[Mitsipilot]

This rule was changed back in 1997. If one has not logged PIC time in an airplane having a retractable gear, retractable flaps and a constant speed propeller before 1997 you must recieve a complex endorsement.

 

[PanAm24]

Arrow

I assume you want to use one of these airplanes for your commercial certificate?? You will need at least 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, and either one will work fine for this purpose. HOWEVER, if you do choose the Arrow, as I did, it will help to practice in the Warrior/Archer/Cherokee class for a few hours to get used to the handling characteristics and fuel management issues before having to worry about a faster, more complex airplane. Around here Warriors and C172's rent for the same price (Arrows are more expensive), so if you need to build some more time get a few hours in a Warrior and you'll have no problem getting used to the Arrow in 10 hours.

 

[jetdriven]

1978 and later t-tail arrows are designated PA28R-201. thus they are high performance airplanes.

 

[ILLINI]

Negative Ghostrider....

The 201 does not represent the horsepower on the Arrow. The 1 at the end simply singifies the tapered wing rather than the straight wing on the PA28R-200.

 

[Speedtree]

I also say go with the cheapest. You can do alot of your training in a non complex a/c and just prepare for taking the checkride in the complex. The 172RGs are nice, relatively simple, and slow in the summer. I took my commercial in the arrow and I enjoyed flying them. The only trick was the automatic gear extend system which had to be overridden during certain commercial maneuvers and adds to the procedures. We also had one where the switch was loosy goosey and tended to slip so the gear would fall halfway up your chandelle or lazy eight. I believe there have been some insurance issues with this system since so they may all be deactivated now. Other than the training complexities it was an o.k. system in my opinion.

I would also agree that varied experience is a benefit. So if you want to, fly in something different like the arrow.

Good luck.

 

[JetPilot500]

I've flown both...both are fun to fly. If I had to pick, I choose the Arrow. Why, I preferred the low wing and the real throttle as opposed to the push/pull knob...LOL!

But seriously, my real reason, I like the idea that the gear can freefall and lock in the event of a problem with your airplane. That complicated gear system in the Cessna RG's is too weird, and there have been too many problems with that system.

Other than that, it comes down to preference and/or costs.

Enjoy,
JetPilot500

 

[ILLINI]

Just a quick note...

Not all Arrows have the auto-drop gear system that has been refered to in this thread. I flew the Arrow III and it did not have this auto-drop feature. If I remember correctly the Arrow II and I think the Arrow IV had this auto-drop feature, which did have a switch to dissable it during training maneuvers.