Airborne_Again wrote:
If they do, their legislation is void
Which legislation? EU ? 
I thought the whole idea is to have instruments/avionics to be able to fly as intended, in the intended airspace. At least that’s the way it is in Norway (so I am told by the CAA). If DME is needed for some procedure, according to AIP, well …
172driver enjoy.
You will indeed be hooked I am afraid.
@LeSving in the case of instrument approaches you are correct. However, radar can provide a range to substitute for a DME on an ILS DME to carry out a glide slope check.
Radar could also provide range on an NDB DME, however practically I would suggest non CDFA minima would apply. Obviously an ADF is required on an NDB approach, EASA not allowing overlay GPS IFR approaches. In practice CAT would fly on an FMS with the ADF on, the ADF being an anachronism which doesn’t make sense from a safety perspective if an IFR GPS or FMS is available.
The max cruise speed for an Archer II is 129 KTAS (75% power at FL80). Can a normally aspirated Arrow really make 164 KTAS at cruise power?
I don´t know about the Archer 2 in particular, but 129 kts is really fast for a normal Cherokee of any type. 110 is what I usually see as a planning speed for a Cherokee 180 with wheelspats, maybe 115 to 120 for an Archer.
An average Arrow II or III will cruise at 140-145 ktas.
So I´d say the difference is about 20 to 25 kts, albeit at 20 hp more.
The comparable planes for the Archer would be the Grumman Tiger as well as the C172 with 180 hp, if you are looking at non complex, or the M20C if you add complex planes (180 hp).
The Archer would be at around 115-120 kts optimistically, the Tiger 140, the 172 also around 120 and the M20C 145-150 KTAS
The Arrow II with 200 hp would be comparable to the SR20 and the M20 J, as well as the C182.
The Arrow would, as mentioned, cruise at around 140-145 kts, the M20 J is a 160 kt airplane, the 182 is somewhere in between. The SR20 also claims 150 kts.
RobertL18C wrote:
Radar could also provide range on an NDB DME, however practically I would suggest non CDFA minima would apply. Obviously an ADF is required on an NDB approach, EASA not allowing overlay GPS IFR approaches. In practice CAT would fly on an FMS with the ADF on, the ADF being an anachronism which doesn’t make sense from a safety perspective if an IFR GPS or FMS is available.
Why would you fly an NDB approach if you have a GPS? I can’t imagine there are many NDB-only approaches, or?
LeSving wrote
Why would you fly an NDB approach if you have a GPS? I can’t imagine there are many NDB-only approaches, or?
Many have NDB missed approach procedures though (at least in the UK). The requirement for an ADF applies if any part of the procedure requires it. And in the UK, there are very few GPS procedures at smaller airfields, and no GPS overlays.
LeSving wrote:
I thought the whole idea is to have instruments/avionics to be able to fly as intended, in the intended airspace. At least that’s the way it is in Norway (so I am told by the CAA). If DME is needed for some procedure, according to AIP, well …
Exactly. That’s why blanket requirements in an AIP like “you need DME for IFR” doesn’t mean anything.
Minor data point but the Warrior today was delivering a solid 110KTAS (actually between 112 KTAS and 115 KTAS but rounded down to get a block number). This was at 2000 feet with OAT 20 C and 2500 RPM. This is approximately 70% power using the good performance tables from the POH. The GPS confirmed this. If typical full throttle on a fixed pitch is around FL70, it implies the claim of cruise speed at altitude of 120-125 KTAS, is correct. The Archer should deliver another 4-5 KTAS (the cube root of 1.125, 180 HP divided by 160 HP, being 1.039, however the Archer has a larger nose wheel so the speed gain is not quite derived from the HP gain).
There was a time the second hand Warrior was at a premium to the Archer due to the slight efficiency advantage.
On a calm warm day, albeit on dry firm grass, runway 23 at Derby with a declared LDA of 306m presented no problem to the Warrior. The simple trick is to be on final at POH speed, of 63 KIAS.
I also checked the MCA speeds (minimum controlled airspeed, a mountain flying concept, which equates to around 1.1 to 1.2x Vs). Clean this came in at 65 KIAS (67 KCAS) with level flight requiring 1500 RPM. Flaps 10 reduced this to 60 KIAS (65 KCAS) still with 1500 RPM. F25 took this down to 53 KIAS (57 KCAS) but requiring 1700 RPM. 15 degree banks required another 100-200 RPM.
In Alaska the Cherokee Six has given very good commercial service, arguably with a stronger nose wheel design than the 206, but somehow the Skywagon family got the bush plane kudos.
RobertL18C wrote:
On a calm warm day, albeit on dry firm grass, runway 23 at Derby with a declared LDA of 306m presented no problem to the Warrior. The simple trick is to be on final at POH speed, of 63 KIAS.
Should not be a problem for an Archer neither assuming both are at 2300lbs
Getting out will be a problem for both 
@lbra albeit at around 2000 lbs, the Warrior was off at around the 200 metre mark. Rolling start from taxi Flaps 25, liftoff at 55 KIAS and accelerating in ground effect to 70 KIAS. Temperature was 25 C, wind calm.
