I almost bought an Arrow once but backed off when I saw the maintenance bills. It appears that Arrows have a lot of costly items which are re-occurring or prone to trouble?
@Mooney_Driver this was news to me? The Arrow, especially the 28R-200 II, is a stalwart amongst the share-o-plane syndicate owner community in the UK. It is prized because maintenance is straightforward (bullet proof Lycoming, relatively straightforward electro-hydraulic undercarriage system), and can be operated from the longer bog like UK farm strips. While only around 10-15 knots faster than the Archer, it has a strong following.
Even the current ADs are not that expensive to implement and I don’t recall onerous recurring inspections?
They also have the advantage that most shops know how to maintain them.
Perhaps the sample you looked at needed a lot of catch up work?
UdoR wrote:
SERA helped a lot.
You mean part-ML?
Looking for a plane to buy can include conversing with people.
We sold our Jodel through the Jodel Group.io.
I heard about the Bolkow (of which I’m at present majority owner) in Asda, Elgin, Moray, in conversation with a fellow shopper. Chance meeting 4 months before we travelled to Lincolnshire to examine her.
RobertL18C wrote:
Perhaps the sample you looked at needed a lot of catch up work?
What I did at the time was to have a look at the maintenance bills they had over the last several years. They were significantly higher in comparison with the normal PA28 I looked at and also what later transpired for the Mooney. It could be that this was a case where they had expensive maintenance, but much later on I heard similar figures from a friend who operated an Arrow 3. I can’t remember off hand what those items were, but I believe they had to do with hydraulics (landing gear) and engine hoses and some other stuff such as prop and governor related items.
I liked that airplane a lot, it looked like brand new from the outside (was bright red from the inside though) and I still think it would have made a great plane for me. But operating costs were outside what I thought I could safely spend then. The M20C’s standard annual and average cost has been quite a bit lower than what I recall from that particular plane and also what my friend told me.
Having said that, I have heard comparative costs for Bonanzas and Cessnas and they are again in a differnt league higher. So I still think the Arrow is a relatively benign financial effort.
Thank you @Snoopy for this thread. It was a badly needed one.
There is no denying that there is a tendency for us flyers to feel a proud sense of achievement at what we do, and in most occasions we have good reasons to. We like to feel we have achieved great missions, our airplane is the best and so on…
Of course this can easily lead to overplaying our achievements : “this is sooo difficult, but I achieved it!”
Properly managed, the message can be encouraging and motivating but I also think very often , this overplaying and associated moves (a lot of them commented on herein, like the typical advise-giving aviators discouraging certain trips which only they could do and so on, but also a lot of other situations) is probably the most widespread off-putting situation in GA. We have all seen it , in this forum too. I am likely guilty of that too.
Perhaps out of that guilt but also out of sheer interest and maybe a bit of generosity, I like to do like @Mooneyflyer and provide free GA-positive advise whenever I feel someone is in need and I have a chance. I don’t know how much of that is motivated by one thing or another, but regardless, I believe all experienced aviators have a duty to keep on encouraging people into GA and helping those who took first steps. If we don’t shift heavily towards that culture soon, the current one could well be the last GA generation as we know it.
Fortunately, this forum has a lot of those encouraging and disinterested help messages too ! Keep it on!
Thank you @Peter, and thank you all forumites , I feel tempted to write names, but I also know I would do disjustice to those left out by listing any. Feel free to feel listed if you are in the helpful, encouraging category. Thanks!
Antonio wrote:
Of course this can easily lead to overplaying our achievements : “this is sooo difficult, but I achieved it!”
Totally agree with @Antonio. One thing I have noticed in this forum is the tendency to claim that you need an IR to do meaningful x-country trips. This is nonsense. I have done long multi-day x-country trips on four continents VFR and am here to tell the tale. Sure, it’s easier to go IFR and you need a bit more flexibility if you’re VFR only, but it’s perfectly doable and enjoyable.
And I agree with 172driver – several times I’ve been wondering here discussions where you seem to need a 40 000 euro plane and IR etc to be able to use your plane.
My current plane cost 11 000 and I would not have money for any more expensive. It is slow, yes, but still it does fly. Could do the whole Finland (1000 km) without refueling if needed.
Years ago I bought a c150 for 7000 dollars in the US and flew with it for 16 months in the usa and central America until Panama. Sleeping in a tent below the wing, fetching gas with a bike from gas stations. That sure was great – much better than a Bonanza or such. Well, of course 7000 in 1987 was worth more than today.. but still it was the cheapest plane that I happened to find in Tucson right then.
Don’t be afraid or ashamed to have and use a cheap plane with no IR or glass cockpit. It can still be plane fun.
172driver wrote:
Sure, it’s easier to go IFR and you need a bit more flexibility if you’re VFR only, but it’s perfectly doable and enjoyable
Maybe this is for the reason to justify the major investment for an IFR capable tourer. Anyhow, it might be added that if VFR flights shall be “used” in a reasonable manner to fly to destinations that you need a lot of experience starting with short flights and keep extending. Doing this IFR is more classroom style. You get taught how and where to fly, even set your speed and altitude in advance, and you follow that and that’s it 
For example, I’ve flown so many times VFR through the main chain of the alps, that without looking them up I know the options, the valleys, even most of the corresponding altitudes, the nature reserve zones, the available aerodromes, and from flying gliders there I know what weather and winds to expect there, so that flying VFR there in as close as some tens or hundred meters to the mountain is a serious option for me – having done so for hours and hours and knowing what to look for.
But without that experience you can easily file a flightplan in FL160 or above and off you go.
So – no, you don’t need IR and most probably will see more and have more exciting flights VFR.
Maybe, even the question may be condensed to: is it flying, what you are looking for, or arriving….
172driver wrote:
One thing I have noticed in this forum is the tendency to claim that you need an IR to do meaningful x-country trips. This is nonsense. I have done long multi-day x-country trips on four continents VFR and am here to tell the tale. Sure, it’s easier to go IFR and you need a bit more flexibility if you’re VFR only, but it’s perfectly doable and enjoyable.
I agree and confirm. Based just south of Rome, I have flown VFR (and 95% ot the flights were without a GPS) all over Europe, the extreme points in each direction being Malta, Siviglia, Coventry, Nordkap, Odessa, Antalya, Crete.
