Snoopy wrote:
I’d look closely at this one
https://www.planecheck.com/?ent=da&id=51479
The interior of that Arrow is beautiful.
How does TB10 & Archer compare on typical UK SE grass? (Sandown being the gold standard these days, ignoring Oaksey & Carlton Pk 
)
Jujupilote wrote:
I can think of the Archer II and Arrow. They share : the same cabin, the same fuel burn if you lean The big difference is : cost of maintenance vs extra speed and climb performance
Arrow, I’d strongly point towards the Arrow II for this mission or, if you can find it, the Arrow III.
The Arrow II definitly can do all of what you want, is good on grass as well and basically an Archer with retractable gear.
As for fixed gear/prop PA28’s, I would also look at the various PA28-180 variants. Some of them have archaic cockpits but they do have some advantages:
- excellent payload
- short field capable
- cheaper than Archers with almost no performance or comfort loss
Jujupilote wrote:
Did I miss something ?
IMHO, the Grumman Tiger should not be discarded. It is a 140 kt airplane with the same cost but better performance than the Archer.
The TB10 would score on cabin size. So would the TB20. For a family van kind of thing, both of those are very nice.
And if you are talking Arrow, have a look and more importantly sit inside a F or G Mooney (or a 201 if you can find one in your budget). I’ve seen some French F’s recently which look interesting. They are often cheaper than the Arrow, but are faster and, in case of manual gear, would have an edge on maintenance costs. As for cabin size, they are practically identical to the Arrow. If you need to fly 4 people regularly, I’d discard the short body C and E, if not, they are contenders as well.
As you are in France… out of the box, a Robin HR 100 could be a very attractive plane, provided it is well equipped. I am talking of the Royal or similar (fixed gear, variable prop) not the Tiara (which has a difficult to maintain engine).
What I would suggest is: Try as many of those as you can and make your own opinion about them. Not two people’s perception is similar. Sit in a TB, a Mooney, a Tiger and all the PA28 variants you are looking at. Maybe you will find something you don’t even know exists right now (I am thinking Wassmer for instance) maybe you will find your current perception confirmed. But it is fun, educational and fulfilling to experience those planes yourself.
Ibra wrote:
How does TB10 & Archer compare on typical UK SE grass? (Sandown being the gold standard these days, ignoring Oaksey & Carlton Pk )
Much of a muchness. The TB series all ‘prefer’ hard runways, but we operate ours from White Waltham which is hardly flat and we don’t have any problems.
The Archer probably gets off a bit quicker at a given weight, but only by a few tens of metres and unless you were operating right on the edge (a fairly short home strip) then I can’t see it being something that ought to have much influence on a purchase decision.
Oaksey Park is where we should have a UK meet-up – the grass (1,000m of it) is smooth enough even for Peter. In fact I’d wager that it’s smoother than a lot of tarmac out there.
Graham wrote:
Are they? I don’t see so many for sale so it’s hard to form a mental dataset.
Indeed, not many for sale. I followed the TB10 market (I have a family of 5, and the TB10 is one of the rare 4cyl powered 5 seaters) for some time now and my (“shallow”) conclusion was for the same price one can get
- TB10, lower hours, VFR panel
- Archer, higher hours, GNS430 or 530 or even W.
I read quite a few times that the spacious cabin of the TB10 costs a bit of cruise speed. So perhaps an Archer will be 10kts faster?I’ve only flown a TB9, that cabin and visibility sure is nice!
I have seen the Grumman Tiger listed as a 140kt aircraft many times. Is that a real figure, or firewalled?
I like the aircraft (haven’t flown one) but am really curious.
For my personal preference I always consider a speed figure to be based on how you would handle the engine if you owned it.
Maybe 70% continuous power (maybe I’m a bit too conservative).
Or 2450 rpm on a 2700rpm-redline fixed pitch?
Based on that I’ve been in Cherokee 180’s at 105 kts
Warriors at 108kts and Arrow II’s at 120kts.
It’s common to seem them reported as significantly faster. (Not that it matters, I’m just interested)
My Robin was quite slippery on 180hp and would do 120kts when it felt like it, (atmospherics, w&b, c of g) and just as often 115kts. Always flown at 2450rpm.
Just curious.
And back to the thread title, Dr400/180 is my choice in the category, if a good one can be found. (many on planecheck etc seem a little lacking in updates/avionics for the money.
@GA_Pete 2450 RPM in a Warrior ranges from 70% at 2000 feet ISA to around 60% at 6000 feet ISA. While the SOP of the Reno Air Race Rare Bear team Warrior was full throttle, and the engine was happy being run like this, density altitude in Reno probably averages around 7,000 during the day. So FT equated to around 70-75%.
I look to fly mine at 70-75% and it makes book speeds, so around 2450 to 2550 RPM in the UK.
When comparing figures on aircraft I first take a Robin 300 with the 160hp engine from the 1960’s which I flew for many years before the club sold it.
This aircraft could take full fuel and 4 normal size adults (average per person 80kg) from LFFK to Perpignan LFMP in around 3 hours averaging 33litres per hour. It was equipped with ADF and VOR for VFR Night flying. (A later owner fitted a panel mounted GPS) It would take off at MTOW on an average grass runway in less than 300metres and cruise at an IAS of 120knots.(please note IAS not TAS).
Maintenance is simple (in France particularly) and not expensive and the only technical problem which caused me a delay on a journey home turned out to be a broken voltage regulator wire. Cost about €2 to repair and £25 for a maintenance company in the UK to recharge the battery without finding the problem.
Finally, compared to many of the aircraft suggested on here Robin 300s are still available relatively cheaply starting at €30000 for a good example with good potential.
I do not suggest the Robin for @Jujupilote to buy bearing in mind he has previously stated that he doesn’t like Robin aircraft because he finds them uncomfortable and that is a good reason not to buy an aircraft. But I do think it forms a good basis on which to compare.
Just my 2cents.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
As for fixed gear/prop PA28’s, I would also look at the various PA28-180 variants. Some of them have archaic cockpits but they do have some advantages:
- excellent payload
- short field capable
- cheaper than Archers with almost no performance or comfort loss
This also true of older PA28-181s, if you prefer the tapered wing. Our 1979 PA28-181 has a useful load of 455 kg (as much as early Cessna 182s) and is also short field capable. (If by “short” you mean 600 m grass.)
Snoopy wrote:
I read quite a few times that the spacious cabin of the TB10 costs a bit of cruise speed. So perhaps an Archer will be 10kts faster?
I’ve only flown a TB9, that cabin and visibility sure is nice!
I don’t believe an Archer would be 10 knots faster than the TB10 for the same power setting. The wider cabin is at least partially offset by the smaller wing.
I’ve not done a direct comparison (have only a handful of hours on an Archer) but I believe that when set to the more usual cruise power settings they cruise at about the same speed. I certainly never got the impression the Archer was noticeably faster, and my reference point at the time I did fly one a few times would have been the TB10.
GA_Pete wrote:
For my personal preference I always consider a speed figure to be based on how you would handle the engine if you owned it.
Maybe 70% continuous power (maybe I’m a bit too conservative).
Or 2450 rpm on a 2700rpm-redline fixed pitch?
Agree. I never see much point in quoting impressive cruise speeds if they are based on cruise power settings that most people aren’t realistically going to use. At low-ish levels one can always push the levers fully forward and go faster by burning more fuel, regardless of the aeroplane.
