All the small Pipers ( 28, 32, 44 & 34 ) have much the same retractable landing gear and the same associated problems.
The biggest problem is poor maintenance, the system is simple and robust but is not tolerant of lack of lubrication, the biggest problem is that the most critical lubrication points are very hard to see and require a very small right angle head on the grease gun to get grease into the trunion bearings, the only alternative to this tool than most maintenance hangers don’t have is to jack up the aircraft and half retract the main gear so that the grease nipple swings clear of obstructions and can be serviced with a normal grease gun.
If you don’t get the grease into the trunion bearings the chances are that eventually the gear won’t free fall into the locked down position if the hydrulic power pack fails.
We all see these run on a shoestring groups who pressurise the smaller maintenance companies over each penny they spend so it will come as no surprise that the minimum pay hanger junior forgets or fails to see the most critical grease points.
Differences between a fixed gear PA28, such as the Archer, and the Arrow include: Retractable gear, variable pitch prop, fuel injection, bigger engine (4-cyl or 6-cyl depending on model) and perhaps also a turbo. Of the fixed gear PA28s the top of the line Dakota has most of the Arrow features but not the RG – I would expect maintenance costs to be in between a regular PA28 and an Arrow.
On the Arrow there are a couple of ADs regarding the nose gear but nothing I know of for the MLG (which is why I asked if you had a reference for it Peter), though obviously it is wise to have it properly examined and tested during the annual. I am advised that the landing gear is not very forgiving of side-loads, but I imagine that most retractable gear GA aircraft are similar.
Thread unlocked – sorry it was meant to be temporary but I forgot. .. 
Now @Peter you seem to be pretty quick to jump to the conclusion that every other plane than the TB series is crap. But then how do you explain that the TB20 annual is even more expensive than the Arrow at the same company?
I don’t understand that conclusion at all.
I was not asking about a TB20. I was asking a specific question on the Arrow landing gear, not having previously come across that sort of cost in light GA (did see such exhaustive work on King Airs).
If somebody who flies plane X asks about some cost on plane Y, does that mean he thinks Y is crap?
As to why a particular company would overcharge on a TB20 service, that is obvious if they overcharge on a PA28 service.
However it appears that the extra cost is not just the gear…
No idea why the same titled thread is locked…
It seems I have to clarify a few things to set the record straight.
Swiss reg requires an annual, in line with EASA regs. And that doesn’t seem very different from N reg. Most people would probably expect the landing gear to be inspected in a proper annual. And I’m sure most A&P/IA would consider a working landing gear a plus.
At the company I’m doing the annual, the annual costs me very roughly 1000CHF (note CHF not € – although the difference is rapidly diminishing) more than an Archer. And this is without non-time limited spares. Now that this is only due to the gear is very obviously an oversimplification to make a point, there are other differences between the two planes.
Now @Peter you seem to be pretty quick to jump to the conclusion that every other plane than the TB series is crap. But then how do you explain that the TB20 annual is even more expensive than the Arrow at the same company?
Are there ADs covering this inspection?
Obviously one does inspect the gear at Annual, etc…
Jesse wrote:
The landing gear in the PA-28R and PA-44 is not of the best quality, it has several weak points where it either cracks or bends. Performing proper inspections do take time.
I almost had a serious landing accident once in a Pa44. The nose gear wouldn’t retract properly so we put the gear down again and flew to our maintenance base instead of getting on with the training. We (two students any myself) got three green lights but were suspicious of the nose gear anyway. I talked my student through a “space shuttle” landing on the main wheels with the nosewheel up in the air until the very last moment. It held but was sticking out of it’s well at a very strange angle. We were just able to get enough directional control to steer off the runway. Had this happened on takeoff, who knows if we would have been able to remain on the runway.
As it turned out, the massive aluminium casting which holds the gear strut and the steel axis upon which the assembly rotates upon retraction had developed cracks over time and finaly broke apart during our previous takeoff. The part is identical among most retractable Pa28 and Pa44 models and we were told that we had experienced a very common failure. So myself, I would feel very uneasy in any retractable light Piper whose gear has not had a thorough inspection during the last 12 months!
Jesse wrote:
I think the basic idea is good, though one should find advice of an experianced engineer of maintenance organisation on these cases.
I agree totally. I am not questioning the technical aspect of it, just the “mandatory rule” thing. That has caused a lot of problems in EU and needs to go away. On the technical aspect (which is what really matters) I totally respect that there simply are SBs that you shouldn’t disregard.
Jesse wrote:
- Running magneto’s WITHOUT inspections for 1000-2000 Hours. On such important items, I really can not understand people want to “safe money”.
- Running altenators on condition even of IFR. On some alternators brush life under heavy loads is about 600 Hours, so not performing the 500 hours inspection is stupid, at 500 hours you only would need some brushes and new grease, at 600 hours you might have an electrical failure in IMC, and as the brushes have damaged the slip ring, you will need a need rotor, which is far more expensive. Just doesn’t make sense.
- Ignore these landing gears SB for some years, unit you have 8 cracked attachments on one side and you gear collapses.
Good advice that I hope owners will listen to.
No;; just heard it from a pilot who flies one.
Peter – do you have a reference for the inspection that you are referring to?
On this aircraft they where clearly neglicted.
Well, yes, there are certain obvious correlations on the Arrow eg
All these conspire to making the Arrow fleet a high maintenance proposition, in most cases I have seen.
However it was suggested that the inspection is some kind of mandatory item, perhaps dictated by ADs.
