Archer II vs.III

Doug GDoug G
in General Discussion
On the "What to fly" website the Archer II and the Archer III look like very different airplanes with the III being seriously lacking in fuel economy, range and payload. They have the same engine so I can't understand why they would be so different. So my questions: is the what to fly information accurate and , if so, why?

Comments

  • flyguydonflyguydon
    mini_15122012-0736_Arrow-Landing1.jpgmini_15122012-0735_DSC00685.jpgmini_IMG-2083a.jpgI'd check other sites for the specs. They are essentially the same plane, same engine, etc. The only real diff is the wheel pants and the front cowl (which on the III is more "like" a Knots 2 U kind so I would almost think performance should improve. Oh, and the III has a more modern panel and has all the switches overhead like a jet :)

    I think the fastest and most efficient would be an older Cherokee 180 with the stubby wings. Or buy my Arrow II 200R !! It will be faster and offer better flying efficiency! I bought a Turbo Arrow and my original Arrow (which I have had since 2005... great plane) is for sale.
  • Doug GDoug G
    I checked some other sites, usefull load declined due to an increase in base weight. Fuel burn was more in line with what I would expect. Any Archer III owners able to share their real life experiences?
  • wiwarriorwiwarrior
    I was a little surprised at Airventure last Summer when I saw the newer Archer on display that had a stated useful load about 40 lbs less than my 74 Warrior. I guess maybe people want more 'stuff' in a plane. I'll take more useful load over A/C & such. My fuel furn as calculated on a few longer legs is 7.25 GPH of flight time, 160 HP.
Sign In or Register to comment.