Before I spend huge loads of money, I just want to know your opinion on the two aircraft, your experiences and how they handle. I want to start training in either one of these aircraft very soon but I cannot decide which one to choose.
I've been in a Arrow before but am interested in the 182.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5180 times:
Training for private pilot? I recommend neither. Go with something simpler like a 152, 172 or a Warrior/Cherokee/Archer.
An Arrow is a complex airplane, it'll get way ahead of a student pilot really fast, a 182 is a high-performance airplane, it will likewise get way ahead of a student really fast. Any of the airplanes I mention above are cheaper and easier to learn how to fly.
If you're training for an instrument rating, I still recommend neither a 182 or an Arrow, take one of the above mentioned airplanes because they're simpler, you'll have enough to do with flying on instruments.
If you're training for commercial, you have to use the Arrow over the 182 since the 182 is not complex.
Another point, the airplanes I mention first are all FAR cheaper than a 182 or an Arrow.
Give it a GO From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5171 times:
I must agree 100% with Ralgah. Any school which thinks it is a "good" idea for you to train in an aircraft with that kind of performance has seen you obviously have more money than sense and is taking you for a ride.
Having flown the Arrow, the 182, the 152 and the Warrior, I would suggest that there is no competition for a student pilot. The Warrior is the way to go.
Lets ignore the Archer and the 182 for the reasons Ralgah has already stated. The 152 has a poorer lookout than the Warrior, its slower, smaller and less stable.
The Warrior, conversley, has stable handling - it actually feels more like a "real" aircraft to fly. Also, it looks better - and it comes down to, do you want to sit on the wings, or hang from them.... I know which I'd rather do.
When you qualify, thats when the time comes to upgrade to a higher performance aircraft. Then, having trained on the Warrior you will be used to flying a 4 seater as opposed to a 2 seater.
You'll find that the Warrior will tend to be just slightly more expensive than the 152 to train in - but in my opinion its well worth the money, (which you must have if you are talking about training in an Archer).
PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5165 times:
I see that you regularly already fly a Tomahawk, in which case it has to be the Arrow won't it?
In my very limited experience I'm a low wing fan myself - don't like banking into turns without a clear view of where I'm going.
But why stop at an Arrow? Go all the way and build yourself a Lancair IV - now there's a real neat mover!
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5161 times:
Can't say which to get from the perspective of flight characteristics (sadly, flying instructions and consequent flying are far above my budget).
In the looks department I like low-wing aircraft better.
But, if you want to use it to take photos of the ground out the window (or have someone else do so) a high wing has definite advantages (though a hole in the belly is even better).
The 172 or Arrow are indeed a lot cheaper. This is of course due to their smaller capacity (not important until you get rated to carry passengers) and lower performance (not important unless you want to take it on long distance flights) plus often due to higher airframe life (because they're often older), which might be important. What has the aircraft been put through? A 172 that was a trainer and made some very hard landings of highstress turns is older than the hours show (it's just like buying a car that used to be an instruction vehicle).
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5148 times:
Just because you fly a Tomahawk already doesn't mean you should go for an Arrow, like I said, Arrows are expensive, one flight school near me gets $135/hr for their Arrow (I think it's a rip off).
If you're on a budget, go with a 150/2, they are very cheap and easy to fly. They also handle like a sports car compared to a Warrior. An Arrow flies like a truck. 172s are generally slightly cheaper than a Warrior, but it's personal preference between those two airplanes.
I think it's easier to land smoothly in a low wing and I like being able to sit on the wing when waiting around, but high wings often have nifty features like courtesy lights in the wing to light up the exterior at night, you can also hide from the rain under the wing.
It's really personal preference and budget. Go to a school and look at their planes. Whatever you do, DO NOT let them talk you into something with more power than a 172 or Cherokee/Warrior/Archer.
QFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5133 times:
The reason for jumping from our Tomahawk to a 182 or Arrow is to save costs. The Tomahawk is 5 kts slower than a Warrior or a 172, so if I'm going to rent an aircraft for advanced training I want something with better performance from the Tomahawk.
Renting a Warrior or 172/152 would be a waste of money as I can fly our Tomahawk for must less and only compromising 5 kts.
I want to fly a 182 or Arrow for advanced training, and with initial training issues aside (as I’m past that training), which aircraft do people prefer for commercial pilot licence training. Lets say both aircraft types are evenly priced, and I have the money to spend.