Piper Turbo Arrow IV .. Am I nuts??

[maehhh]

Hi there!

I did a couple of hours in a Piper Turbo Arrow IV some time ago...

Conclusion:
It takes forever to get it in the air and even when it finally reaches Vr it nearly takes both arm to rotate that thing and get it off the ground.
In general the controls feel annoyingly unbalanced with the very heavy elevator compared to the light rudder and the ailerons somewhere in the middle. While this is not a big issue in cruise flight it gets quite annoying during approach speeds. Oh and to make sure you are on the runway before the tail stops flying is another challenge one has to get used to...
The trim wheel sits in a completely unhandy position if you want to use it manually and do I really need to comment about the manual flaps?
On top of that the fact that it has only one cockpit door makes me feel claustrophobic and scares the sh*t out of me over water.

Despite all of this I start to like that aircraft for touring and feel like a Turbo Arrow IV would be a nice aircraft to own one day...
what is wrong with me??:confused:



cheers
maehhh

[Genghis the Engineer]

Most of your criticisms are generic to the PA28, and would apply equally to an old Cherokee 140. But they are a fantastically successful family of aeroplanes, and very comfortable tourers. The Arrows, unlike the "smaller" models have a fairly reasonable payload as well.

Personally I enjoy flying them, and a Turbo Arrow is one of my favourites if I'm in the USA and want to rent a tourer.


Would I own one? No. Retractable gear and a variable pitch prop carry a large maintenance cost overhead for a private owner, and the extra bit of speed for me is not worth the substantially increased running costs. Plus I do think that there are nicer handling aeroplanes than the PA28, with a similar or better payload. The C182 or the AA5b Tiger for example.

So personally I like to (and do) own a (share in a) medium performance, fixed gear, fixed pitch, Grumman AA5 that does me very nicely thank you. It cruises at 105 compared to the 130 I'd get out of a Turbo Arrow, but still will get to all of the same places, costs roughly half per hour what the TA would cost me, and has a better view out and lighter handling.

And I shall enjoy the Turbo Arrow whose economies are met by a busy FBO, and are happy to rent it to me, when I'm in the USA with a few days spare.

G

[peterh337]

Retractable gear and a variable pitch prop carry a large maintenance cost overhead for a private owner

Only if the owner completely neglects the most basic maintenance, or permits some muppet maintenance co. to do that.

I fly a TB20 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tb20-experience/index.html) whose landing gear has cost me practically nothing over 10 years, but then I pay an extra ~£200 every year to have it properly greased. The VP prop costs more than a fixed pitch prop but in terms of direct flying cost it is of the order of £3/hr extra which is easily recouped in the fuel saving through having a much better performing aircraft. The retractable gear costs are recouped many times over through the 10-20% fuel saving for the same IAS (Cirrus salesmen will vigorously deny that, but they would say that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies) :) ).

Having said that, I would choose a TB20 anytime over an Arrow - the two don't even begin to compare for a human-friendly modern cockpit.

[Genghis the Engineer]

An interesting perspective Peter and for once, I shall bow to your greater wisdom. (Please don't expect me to make a habit of it!).

G

[sapperkenno]

Just a thought from a casual observer, but I recall flying some in the States with 50lbs of lead shot in the luggage compartment behind the seats. Without, it would have been very close to, if not exceeding forward CG limits with 2 people up front.

[Sir George Cayley]

It's the Turbo that I question. I've only found an advantage when operating above the altitude at which a normally aspirated engine needs full throttle to maintain a desired % power.

I've also seen the bill for the recovery from France and new turbo in an Arrer :eek:

Although the 182 will develop your arm muscles holding the elevators back, it's a much more capable a/c imho.

SGC

[peterh337]

Please don't expect me to make a habit of it!:)

What I forgot to add is that if you are going to buy a plane that is totally shagged and you want to run it into the ground or on a very tight budget (which is basically what happens in a large % of the GA scene, especially the training fleet) then retractable gear is a bad idea. People have all sorts of problems with it, made worse by the unwillingness of maintenance companies to do what they see as "extra work" for their standard Annual charge of say £2500 or whatever.

I recall flying some in the States with 50lbs of lead shot in the luggage compartment behind the seats. Without, it would have been very close to, if not exceeding forward CG limits with 2 people up front. Which is not very useful :) I recall reading a similar story about a Bonanza, I think. In comparison, the TB20 is practically impossible to load outside the envelope without exceeding the MTOW.

It's the Turbo that I question. I've only found an advantage when operating above the altitude at which a normally aspirated engine needs full throttle to maintain a desired % power.

Yes; it depends on your mission profile. In Europe, a turbo means an IR, practically. And oxygen, of course. A TB20 will reach FL180 in about 30 minutes and will make FL200 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/edny3/edds-egka-2-big.jpg) "some time" after that :) I would expect a turbo arrow to beat the 30 minutes by a decent margin; the Q is what value this brings in practice. I think that to get that (the ability to climb through icing layers) one also needs de-ice. If I bought a TB21 I would get one with full TKS.

[Cows getting bigger]

There are far better PA28s out there.

Firstly, don't even consider the T tail - a ridiculous change that brought nothing positive to the aircraft.

Wobbly wheels. Having owned an Arrow, I have be stung when the undercarriage needs even the most basc of maintenance.

Have you had a go at a PA28 (tirbo) Dakota? These are a nice compromise with a wobbly prop but faxed wheels.

All that said, I think there are better 'four seat' tourers out there. Ones which spring to mind include the higher end TB range, the Commanders etc

[Genghis the Engineer]

Your purchase budget is a big player.

I think if I was looking for a reasonable sole-owned tourer with good IFR capability, and fair range and performance, I'd start looking perhaps at a Grumman Tiger or a C182, which are pretty economical. Personally I prefer the ergonomics and handling of the AA5 over either the PA28 or the C182, and I really like having my own door!

Without a doubt the TBs will offer a nicer and more capable aeroplane than any of these, but the purchase cost will also be substantially greater.

You will, ultimately, get what you can afford to buy.

G

[maehhh]

Well first of all I agree a TB20/21 is a delight to fly and I wouldn't want to miss a single hour I spent in it so far :suspect: TB20? Any day!

However from a renters point of view:

Even if the undercarriage and the turbo can be hassle when it comes to maintenance it is not really your business... And if you bring a Turbo Arrow up to a decent altitude (lets say FL100 or higher) TAS will be close to a TB20 but the hourly rate is way cheaper...

[peterh337]

Not sure why the hourly rate should be way cheaper... there is nothing in the aircraft itself that should cause that.

[Peter Geldard]

Cows get bigger states:
. . . don't even consider the T tail.
Is this based on definitive long-term experience or mere 'hangar' talk!
Having owned a T tail Arrow IV for the last 5 years, (and flown some 500 hours in it), I am curious as to what the hostility is based on.
If I had to chose a plane simply for its looks, then I would not have 'added' the T tail; but as it exists - with no practical disadvantages (other than its appearance) - I am grateful for the false criticisms Arrow IV's receive, since it reduces its selling price and I was happy to 'save' over £15,000 five years ago because of 'false' rumours.
I have never had any problem with the tail: In fact, although the recommended landing speed is 75 knots, I have sometimes used 60/65 knots on short fields with no loss of control whatever.
To me, the Turbo and Variable Prop are real bonuses if you enjoy long high touring. They save fuel, and allow faster, more economical flying especially at FL 100+. Properly maintained, I believe they have actually saved me money due to more power and efficient fuel burn.
Although there are more modern, slicker planes out there on the block - at a price (like the Cirrus?) - often their payload and/or ability to land in short fields is compromised.
Every plane is a balance of choices/priorities: but for me, who wants a good tourer with no weight problems + long range tanks and a reasonable cruise speed and the ability to get in/out of 500 metre fields, my PA28RT fits the bill. I have no regrets.

[A and C]

Most of the bad press that Piper aircraft get is from people who fail to load them properly.

[Cows getting bigger]

FPG, my comments come as a past owner of an Arrow I and a few hundred hours CPL instruction on an Arrow IV. In no particular order:

A pain for engineers and routine maintenance.
Less responsive in pitch.
Faster approach speeds = longer landing distance.
A 'feeling' that the aircraft really doesn't want to fly when taking-off.

Basically, I don't think the T tail made any improvement and, casting everything else aside, brings a heavier engineering bill.

[thing]

Just a thought from a casual observer, but I recall flying some in the States with 50lbs of lead shot in the luggage compartment behind the seats. Without, it would have been very close to, if not exceeding forward CG limits with 2 people up front. That's a problem I find with any 28, you can't have two hefty guys in the front and full tanks. I heard (don't know if there's any truth in it) that some 28s have the battery in the back end which relieves the forward CG problem.

I've flown with a bag full of house bricks in the luggage compartment before.

[Dan the weegie]

Hmmm, I honestly can't think of a reason that you'd want one over a Cherokee 6, a C182 or a TB20 (you can get one for nice Arrow IV money)

If I was to own it myself a 182 would be unquestionably the one I'd want simply because it's the most flexible in terms of places it can get in to and because of the gear alone will also be the cheapest to own and fairly cheap to buy.

The TB20 will be the most expensive to run but will also be the fastest and most comfortable so for distance touring wins every time
The Cherokee 6 will be relatively cheap to purchase, have a greater ownership cost than the 182 but has a bit more of a touring capability.

For similar spec Turbo Arrow IV money these are all very achievable and ownership costs would be very similar perhaps with the exception of insurance costs being higher for 6 seat aircraft.

There's just more suitable planes out there for a private owner (imo!)

[Big Pistons Forever]

The other issue is the engine does not have a very good reputation. The TSIO 360 series seems to almost always require a midlife complete cylinder replacement to make it to TBO and the fixed waste gate turbocharging system is not very pilot friendly and can easily result in repeated overboost incidents. That combined with the lack of elevator effectiveness at low speeds and a rather cramped cabin make this airplane IMO not very appealing.

To my mind the best tourer for a PPL is a good C 182. Usefully fast, a great big comfortable cabin, high payload, simple systems, and very stable predictable flying qualities. It is IMO the nicest light aircraft to fly IFR ever made. At the average PPL annual use level the extra cost of fuel will be totally offset by lower maintenance and insurance costs over that of a retractable.

[3 Point]

You want a four seat tourer - I've just been flying my Gardan Horizon - lovely!

I can carry 350Kg of payload with 5 1/2 hours of fuel at 120Kts - retractable and VP prop. I've not flown any PA28 above the basic Cherrokee/Warrior types but the Horizon looks better, handles much better, lands slower, carries more and has two large doors!

Mine had a landing gear collapse last year - due I believe to less than rigorous maintenance during the annual which was completed 9 hours previously. This incident trashed my newly overhauled Prop and basically wrote the aeroplane off. I took the insurance payment, bought the salvage and have spent the past six months funding repairs which came to a conclusion with the first flight three Sundays ago. I replaced the VP prop with a fixed one to minimise costs, bought a scrap airframe to scavenge for landing gear parts and had the engine thoroughly overhauled.

You might think I'm a bit mad as I could easily have bought a nice PA28 for the cost of repairing this Horizon but ... It's a very nice aeroplane and it simply deserved to be rescued!

There are of course costs associated with retractable and VP props; if you're going to have an aeroplane with these features you'd better not skimp on the maintenance - like the man said - you can pay me now or you can pay me later!!

What's the point of telling the story? Well, when you buy an aeroplane it's not just a simple technical evaluation based on performance figures and such - you have to like the thing!

I like my Horizon!

If the OP likes his Turbo Arrow good luck to him!

Happy landings to all

3 Point

[Sir George Cayley]

I've flown a Garden Horizontal; what a strange affair.

Firstly, you can't have the wheels down without flaps.

Secondly, to raise the gear and hence flaps one has to wind a lever on top of a tube between the seats. It must have been me but I couldn't wind with my right arm without pulling a pushing the yoke with my left.

Then there's the performance. Or lack. A number of my aircraft have had better performance without a CS prop and retractable gear. I used to fly a MiniCab which you can see in the Horizon and that was a more pleasurable experience.

Considering some of the whacky things I've owned I should be the last to comment, but Horizon vs PA28RT? C'mmon.

SGC

[madlandrover]

The gear and flaps are a little odd, but one gets used to them in time. Performance? Don't compare it to an Arrow - it isn't one. Compared to a Cherokee though it comes off a bit better!

[3 Point]

Wasn't comparing it to an Arrow but it does stack up well in the payload department. Why would you want wheels down without flaps - no reason I can see. You're either taking off, cruising or landing - only two configurations needed, up or down!

To wind the gear without causing the aeroplane to porpoise just trim LOL!

Anyway, my point was that aeroplanes are more than a list of performance measurements and statistics - you go to like them too. I like my Horizon!

[M-ONGO]

The Horizon flew nicely but just does not do it in the looks department. The only decent looking French aircraft are the Falcon 2000 series, CAP 10's, Robin/Jodels and the venerable Broussard. I had a share in G-AZAW many moons ago. The turbo Arrow is IMHO a fantastic bird. Many schools use them for JAA CPL training. This has kept demand for good examples high.

[peterh337]

The only decent looking French aircraft are the Falcon 2000 series, CAP 10's, Robin/Jodels and the venerable Broussard

Really?

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/tb20.jpg

[Pace]

Peter

What a lovely picture of the TB! I don't know that much about the Arrow 4 other than many considered the more conventional arrow 3 to be better?
I used to fly a Grumman Tiger which I rated highly as a fixed gear fixed prop single which would do 130 kts with nice handling, good visibility and loads of Character.
I also used to love the rolls Royce of singled the Commander 114 which had superb looks , spacious cabin great build quality and an undercarriage built like a tank.
What range do you safely get on your aircraft and what is the difference on the Gt as I know someone interested in
Buying a Gt.

Pace

[thing]

and an undercarriage built like a tank.

You haven't seen the one at Fenland....:eek:

[M-ONGO]

Really?

In my humble opinion, yes. I'm not a fan of the TB series for the following reasons:

The doors - not the best for emergency egress in a forced landing.

Relatively high best glide speed (as does the Arrow 4)

The instrument panel looks like Renault designed it (granted, older Pipers are not much better but have you seen a TB10/20's after years of student use?)

From your excellent website Construction was mostly aluminium, with a curved composite roof and a lot of car-type plastic (a little like a 1970s Renault - apparently they designed the interior)

Not so fantastic visibility from either front seat

Plus sides of the TB series that I can contest to:

Comfy seats relative to other SEP's

Fairly decent rear seating position

Despite its 1970s design, the aircraft looks a lot more modern than most other GA types to that, I will agree.

It's all a matter of personal opinion Peter, horses for courses. I've instructed on both TB's and the Piper range. Most students seem to prefer the Piper range, certainly most instructional/rental operators do.

[thing]

Must say I was looking at a TB10 yesterday and the windshield seemed very narrow in depth, whats the view out like Peter?

[peterh337]

What range do you safely get on your aircraft and what is the difference on the Gt as I know someone interested in Buying a Gt.

The zero-fuel range, assuming a climb to ~FL100, is about 1350nm at a TAS of 140kt. This is at peak EGT and is well above the book figure which is at a higher power setting.

The GT changes are numerous, with the ~2-3" extra headroom (composite roof) and the retracting footsteps being the most visible. Many small changes e.g. beefed up gear relays. However I have never seen an exhaustive list. The GT is well worth going for if you can afford the extra cost (a good one is about £140k, though some advertisers are asking silly money) and anyway a privately operated hangared 2002/2003 GT should be close to new in terms of general condition.

The doors - not the best for emergency egress in a forced landing.

Why? They seem to work just fine, unlike e.g. the Piper door which is held by two locks and potentially much more likely to jam. To use a metaphor, all the single door planes are death traps. If you have an obese person in the front RHS, nobody is getting out in a hurry.

Relatively high best glide speed (as does the Arrow 4)

That goes with aerodynamic efficiency. The designer will always aim for Vs to be just below the max permitted for SE (61kt IIRC) which is why all the IFR tourers have a Vs of 59-60kt, and Vbg follows directly from that.

The instrument panel looks like Renault designed it (granted, older Pipers are not much better but have you seen a TB10/20's after years of student use?)

I agree; you cannot stick a jackboot into it too many times, whereas you can into a steam boiler panel. I don't see a solution however, you will have the same issue with modern glass cockpits. One cannot just throw a headset on it, like so many people do. One has to show people where to put stuff, and where to grip to adjust the seats, etc.

not so fantastic visibility from either front seat

I don't see that. It is much better than anything "old" I have flown (PA28, C152, C172, etc). Other pilots comment similarly.

It's all a matter of personal opinion Peter, horses for courses. I've instructed on both TB's and the Piper range. Most students seem to prefer the Piper range, certainly most instructional/rental operators do.

I don't think the TB is suitable for kicking around the school scene. But there are other factors. Few operators want to train ab initio in a retractable (I believe TB20s were/are used in Indonesia etc) which leads to the TB10 etc and they were hugely overpriced during most of their manufacturing life. If you looked at the deals Cessna were offering on C172s, the TB10 was about 30% more.

But a TB20 cannot be compared with a TB10. They share only the similar looks. The TB20 totally outclasses the TB10, and every C172/182/PA28.

Must say I was looking at a TB10 yesterday and the windshield seemed very narrow in depth, whats the view out like Peter?

Not sure I understand you... narrow in depth? The view out is very good. Great for flying tight circuits to land.

[mmgreve]

To use a metaphor, all the single door planes are death traps. If you have an obese person in the front RHS, nobody is getting out in a hurry.



I have often wondered about this. I can understand structural reasons for only having one door, although I am sure they can be overcome even by Piper (look at the rear doors in a Saratoga !).

If you decide only to have one door however, why not have it in the pilot side? It is not only Piper, also Mooney, Beech and others, so surely there is a good reason!

The only reason I can see is the "gentleman argument" of the pilot not leaving the airplane in a crash before all passengers are out, but as Peter points out, I can also imagine situations where it would be good to have the pilot out first to be able to pull/ break glass from the outside, etc.

In daily use (i.e. when we are not in a crash, which after all is most days), it is a real pain. My wife hates having to stand freezing on the appron while I do the walk around, etc.....and the time I wanted to double check if the luggage hatch was properly closed, she was thorougly unimpressed.

why, oh why?

[Pace]

Peter

All these aircraft have plus and minus points so it usually comes down to what someone is looking for and what turns them on :E
I have flown a few TB20s and something did not work for me in the concept of the design which was to make an aircraft feel more like a car in its interior layout.
That is ok but as in a car the interior design can quickly look dated as new materials and mouldings come into play.
The strong point appears to be the range.

Pace

[peterh337]

I agree the TB interior is easily "dated" in the way that a lot of today's cars will look awfully dated in 5 years' time. But you get a very ergonomic layout in a GT

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/tb-ehsi-panel.jpg

which beats most Piper/Cessna layouts which tend to be rather haphazard, especially by the time they have been upgraded to something from the 1990s :)

TB20 strong points are

- great looks :)
- great range
- best MPG for the cockpit size
- human-friendly cockpit
- great performance - 155kt TAS at FL080-140, ceiling FL200 which gets you above 99% of non-frontal weather
- easy to work on
- easy to obtain parts (some are pricey but that is true for most "advanced" planes)
- the most reliable gear on the retract scene
- good short runway capability for the type (500m tarmac is easy)
- a very stable IFR platform
- normally-aspirated engine, 250HP, makes TBO in most cases

Downsides will depend on your usage. Avionics installers hate the hard to get to centre stack (especially those who don't know where the screws are). For night ops on unlit taxiways, the LH-only taxi light is near-useless for turning right; an added RH light is possible but involves a lot of paperwork.

But there is a reason why, after 10 years of ownership of a TB20GT from new, I have no desire to change. And I could buy an SR22 anytime, which goes a bit quicker, burns quite a bit more juice to do it, and has a chute :) But I actually prefer the TB20, for my "mission profile" which is UK messing about with an occassional long foreign trip. The only realistic upgrade is a Jetprop but one would not be doing the messing-about in that, so a more long range mission profile would be needed, and that is why I don't have a Jetprop already.

[M-ONGO]

Hello Peter

[QUOTE][Why? They seem to work just fine, unlike e.g. the Piper door which is held by two locks and potentially much more likely to jam. To use a metaphor, all the single door planes are death traps. If you have an obese person in the front RHS, nobody is getting out in a hurry./QUOTE]

The fact of the matter is that gull wing/swing doors on aircraft, despite normally there being two of them, are dangerous in the event of a forced landing on a rough or ploughed area. If (very likely) the aircraft were to invert, I'd rather take my chances with an unlatched before impact single entry Piper door. God forbid a ditching... Forgetting the kick out 'exits' in the rear of course.

[peterh337]

I agree re the inverted aircraft scenario. Then you have to kick out the rear windows.

But this seems very rare. The POH procedure for a rough landing is gear-up, and from my reading of accident reports very few of those end up inverted.

I also don't see a special issue with ditching. A number of TBs have been ditched, successfully. One quite recently as it happens, and he was in the raft with just his feet wet (I know him).

If you decide only to have one door however, why not have it in the pilot side? It is not only Piper, also Mooney, Beech and others, so surely there is a good reason!

I suspect the reason is to enable passenger(s) to get in and out without the pilot having to do so as well. Historically, many years ago, these types would have been used for a lot of paying passenger transport ops. But that's only my guess - it goes back to at least the 1940s.

[M-ONGO]

The POH/QRH procedure for most retractables is to land gear up in that event. Winding up inverted is not uncommon in many scenarios! I stand by my last - i'd rather be in an aircraft with conventional doors in that scenario. Even worse in a TB9 or 10 though!

What caused the ditching of your friend? Again, I'd rather not ditch at all... If I had to, give me conventional door(s) again.

[thing]

Not sure I understand you... narrow in depth? The view out is very good. Great for flying tight circuits to land.

The distance from the top to the bottom of the windshield. I haven't sat in one so can't comment about the view from the inside.

[flyinkiwi]

That TB20 dash looks like KITT from Knight Rider in a cool retro kind of way. :ok:

[flyinkiwi]

Cows getting bigger: you said that the Arrow gives you:

A 'feeling' that the aircraft really doesn't want to fly when taking-off.

Can you elaborate?:confused: You have a lot more Arrow time than I do but I've never felt they were sluggish or unresponsive, just a little nose heavier than your average Cherokee.

[maehhh]

Well in my (limited) experience with a T-tail arrow

Even after reaching Vr u still need a scary lot of force to pull the stick back and eventually get the nose off the ground. For a second I was wondering if I messed up to read the airspeed indicator! To me it feels like the Arrow just doesn't want to leave the ground and even on the first seconds of initial climb-out the stick needs brutal force (compared to others) to keep the nose where u want it ... any other C182 or TB20 would have stalled within seconds if u'd pulled the stick like that :suspect:


However i don't have experience on a Cherokee or any other P28 so i can't compare it to that...

[peterh337]

That TB20 dash looks like KITT from Knight Rider in a cool retro kind of way:)

That is the layout which came on the last TB20GTs made. Production wound down c. 2001, with deliveries continuing into 2002 and a few in 2003. It is basically very good reliable 1990's avionics - with the exception of the KFC225 autopilot which performs extremely well but continues to give sporadic trouble with its "smoking" servos (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html). The panel is factory standard except for the KI229 RMI which I got installed in place of an ADF, and the Sandel SN3500 EHSI which I put in to replace the original KI525.

I am loathe to do any more but a number of people have ripped it all out and put in a Garmin 500 which costs, with the "mandatory" GTN650 and other messing, best part of £40k. The finished job looks nice. Lower down, you can install the Aspen EFD-1000 but almost everybody has had problems with those; a colleague of mine is on his 4th one in 3 years.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well in my (limited) experience with a T-tail arrow

Even after reaching Vr u still need a scary lot of force to pull the stick back and eventually get the nose off the ground. For a second I was wondering if I messed up to read the airspeed indicator! To me it feels like the Arrow just doesn't want to leave the ground and even on the first seconds of initial climb-out the stick needs brutal force (compared to others) to keep the nose where u want it ... any other C182 or TB20 would have stalled within seconds if u'd pulled the stick like that :suspect:


However i don't have experience on a Cherokee or any other P28 so i can't compare it to that...

So you didn't trim it correctly for take-off, and it's very reluctant to stall.

I do find the forces in the Arrow a little higher than the Warrior, but not unacceptable at-all. Both are very hard to stall, which is hardly grounds for criticism.

G

[M-ONGO]

Granted, the T tail arrows do have a heavy feel to them. Rather solid, feels like you are flying a bigger aircraft than it is. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing like "brutal" or "scary" amounts of force required.

Maehhh - did you check yourself out on type or did an instructor?

The trim wheel sits in a completely unhandy position if you want to use it manually and do I really need to comment about the manual flaps?

Nothing wrong with the location of the trim wheel. That may imply that you did not sit in the cockpit and familiarise yourself with the location of switches/controls prior to flying a new type.

As for the flaps, electric flaps are another thing to go wrong. I do hope you are in the habit of visually checking settings, not just moving a switch to a detent. Is it because you think the handbrake style lever doesn't look cool when your taking chicks up? You want to feel more of a jet jock?

[mmgreve]

I would agree that the T-tail is an absolute pig to fly.

It is great in the cruise (on autopilot), but really heavy in the circuit and you have to trim it constantly. It is the only airplane where I have to take the right hand off the throttle to help pull in the flare. I would not be surprised if many of T-tails suffer from nose gear problems due to nose-first landings. That said, I never "fly an airplane on" and it might be a question of technique, but I also fly from a grass runway.

If your mission profile is mostly longer distance touring and from larger airports, I can see the argument for buying a T-tail Arrow due to the purchase cost. I would not have it on my list.

[achimha]

But a TB20 cannot be compared with a TB10. They share only the similar looks. The TB20 totally outclasses the TB10, and every C172/182/PA28.

You forgot about the 182 RG, that one can compete with a TB20/21 :)

- great performance - 155kt TAS at FL080-140, ceiling FL200 which gets you above 99% of non-frontal weather

Similar for the 182 RG, the turbo version (TR182) does 177KTAS at FL200, can easily go to FL240 but isn't allowed to (was fully certified for FL240 but then limited to FL200 to not cannibalize 210 sales).

- the most reliable gear on the retract scene


Low wing retractable gears are much simpler in design and easier to stow but I would argue the 182 RG's gear is one of the sturdiest with typical Cessna long steel tubes that can absorb a lot of shock without making the aircraft jump. I do land at grass strips with the RG but tarmac is certainly better.

- good short runway capability for the type (500m tarmac is easy)


Well, that's not exactly great short runway capability. 500m tarmac is good for two takeoffs with a 182 RG. Short field performance is probably the biggest strength of the 182 family.

- normally-aspirated engine, 250HP, makes TBO in most cases


The 182 RG has the same engine as the TB20 but carbureted and rated at 235 HP. The 182 RG was the first Cessna aircraft to feature a Lycoming engine, reason was that they could not fit the retractable nose gear with a Continental engine. The TR182 is turbo normalized and generally makes TBO and beyond. Carbureted is not as nice as fuel injected but in case your fuel distribution system works well (read: even distribution), the disadvantages are minimal. If you're lucky, you can do LOP. Carb icing is not a factor for the TR182 because the turbocharger heats up the intake air. Never seen my carb temp gauge in the danger area.

Advantages of a 182 RG over the TB20/21:

short field performance
spacious cabin (family of 4 + mother in law on vacation including stroller)
useful load (esp. when compared to the turbo charged TB21)
high wing (great when it rains) :)
large prop clearance
large number of available STCs (esp. when EASA reg)

[maehhh]

Oh gosh...

Nothing wrong with the location of the trim wheel. That may imply that you did not sit in the cockpit and familiarise yourself with the location of switches/controls prior to flying a new type.

Of course I did familiarise myself with the cockpit and I don't get your point. I didn't say that I couldn't find the trim wheel, I said it is IMHO in an unhandy position. That was my impression on the first flight and it still is now after some more. That may be highly subjective but doesn't change a thing...


Maehhh - did you check yourself out on type or did an instructor?

An instructor of course. And yes of course my instructor briefed me on the T-tail. However talking about it and actually feeling/handling it for the first time can be two different stories.

I do hope you are in the habit of visually checking settings, not just moving a switch to a detent.

Again I don't see your point. How do manual flaps save u from visual checks? Maybe I'm spoiled here but I simply consider it inconvenient. Not a big deal tho' ... I would agree on that.

Is it because you think the handbrake style lever doesn't look cool when your taking chicks up? You want to feel more of a jet jock?

Seriously? :ugh: :ugh:

So you didn't trim it correctly for take-off, and it's very reluctant to stall.

Trim was on take-off setting and CoG was in the envelop.
Just to make that clear: I did not say the Arrow was or felt close to a stall, I said the same amount of force on the elevator of a Cessna would stall it...!

_____________________

Don't get me wrong guys I wrote this based on my thoughts after my first experience on that Arrow IV. Till that day there were only Cessnas and TBs in my logbook and IMHO especially when coming from a Cessna a T-tail Arrow IV is just a complete different story in almost every aspect... Now after some more time we are both going along quite well and as I said in the end I would even consider it a nice SEP to own one day despite those little quirks...


cheers
maehhh

[peterh337]

Well, that's not exactly great short runway capability. 500m tarmac is good for two takeoffs with a 182 RG. Short field performance is probably the biggest strength of the 182 family.

A Maule is even better :)

5 takeoffs in 500m?

The big Q is whether you want the tradeoffs that come with that.

A friend of mine has just bought a C182 with the canard kit (N-reg) and while he traded a superb IFR tourer for it (a TB20GT :) ) to him it is worthwhile because he can fly it from his 400m garden whereas previously he had a 1hr drive to his airport, and his trips are mostly short; say 300nm.

As I say, it's all a tradeoff, and the tradeoffs in aviation are pretty severe.

Re turbo normalisation, the TB21 is also TN but few (any?) make TBO without new cylinders. I don't know why; I assume it's because people fly them as they are meant to fly them :) I transition to 120kt once clear of obstacles and then maintain constant EGT all the way to cruise, and the engine power drops off rapidly as the MP drops. With a TN engine you climb with all 3 levers on the forward stops all the way to cruise... why not? You paid for the privilege, so use it. But the engine does work a lot harder. Also, in cruise, I might be running at 50% power whereas the TN engine will be run at 75% power. Obviously it will go faster.

[M-ONGO]

Achima

More benefits of the C182RG over TB20/21:

2 bloody great doors with large opening windows, not gullwing Heath hazards:=
Rearward visibility to check for the Hun or TB's you've overtaken:)
Amazing pendulum stability
It's not French:ok:

Give me even a fixed gear 182 over a TB (Tarbes Botch) any day.

Maehhh:

Again I don't see your point. How do manual flaps save u from visual checks? Maybe I'm spoiled here but I simply consider it inconvenient. Not a big deal tho' ... I would agree on that.

Manual flaps DON'T 'save' you from visually checking flaps. You've missed the point - with your low hours it's easier to form habits. It's a good habit to form visually checking the set position accords to the handle/lever detent.

Quote:
Is it because you think the handbrake style lever doesn't look cool when your taking chicks up? You want to feel more of a jet jock?


Lighten up. Germans not understand jokes? ;)

[maehhh]

Lighten up. Germans not understand jokes?

Sorry mate... never heard about the world famous German humor? :E

[achimha]

A friend of mine has just bought a C182 with the canard kit (N-reg) and while he traded a superb IFR tourer for it (a TB20GT ) to him it is worthwhile because he can fly it from his 400m garden whereas previously he had a 1hr drive to his airport, and his trips are mostly short; say 300nm.

That bird is so weird, you will always attract a crowd at airports and get very used to explaining the concept of canard wings :) I wonder why nobody has come up with foldable canards, that should eliminate most of the slowdown in cruise.

Re turbo normalisation, the TB21 is also TN but few (any?) make TBO without new cylinders. I don't know why; I assume it's because people fly them as they are meant to fly them

There have been many cases of bad cylinders in the last few years. If you outsource your whole national industry to China, it gets harder and harder to produce quality products... I don't think TN should have an impact on cylinder/engine life. Consider that the TSIO-540 can produce up to 350hp so the TB21 variant has a rather low power rating. The important thing is keeping CHT below 400°F at all times and this requires good instrumentation + understanding. I don't know how effective the TB21's engine cooling is. The 182RG POH states a CHT limit of 500°F which is completely insane. The factory instrumentation is totally useless with a single, uncalibrated CHT probe.

It's not French

Socata's products are very well engineered with good finnish. Much better than the rest I would say.

I would have looked at the TB20 (the TB21 is not worth it IMO, poor payload) and the DA40/42 but they just don't fit a family with luggage. There isn't much choice for an IFR family tourer in the 4 seat category.

Manual flaps DON'T 'save' you from visually checking flaps. You've missed the point - with your low hours it's easier to form habits. It's a good habit to form visually checking the set position accords to the handle/lever detent.

I admit that I rarely check my flaps pre flight. When questioned by copilots, I ask them what they would do if the flaps didn't retract. Cancel the flight? There are 182 RG operators that never use flaps unless the runway is short to not put unnecessary stress on the flap rails.

While I really don't like the PA28 family for all the reasons given, I kind of like their flap system, very simple and direct. Did most of my IFR training on PA28s at large airports with minimum 140KIAS on final and it was a real challenge finding that lever on the floor, pulling it with force and at the same time trying to not lose the glideslope :) What I hate most about the PA28 is the position of the fuel selector. Just the other day a PA28 crashed short of our airfield because the pilot forgot about it and the tank ran empty on final. Stupid pilot for sure but the Cessnas rule out that issue.

[M-ONGO]

I admit that I rarely check my flaps pre flight. When questioned by copilots, I ask them what they would do if the flaps didn't retract. Cancel the flight? There are 182 RG operators that never use flaps unless the runway is short to not put unnecessary stress on the flap rails.

Before you go calling others stupid, read your comment above.

[achimha]

Before you go calling others stupid, read your comment above.

No reason to get excited. That's just my personal habit on my personal aircraft that no one else flies, not a recommendation on how others should do their pre flights. The 182 doesn't really need flaps at all and I very often do no flaps landings. I do take off with 10° flaps most of the time to remove stress from the tires and landing gear and this is also when I visually check if they retract evenly.

[peterh337]

I don't think TN should have an impact on cylinder/engine life

I agree with all you say on this, but engine life is evidently not a black/white thing where if you do X then 100% of engines will make TBO without any work and if you do Y then 0% of them will.

It is a continuous progression, and I am certain that a NA engine lasts longer than a TN version of the same engine simply because the former spends less time running at a given power output.

Obviously one could operate the TN engine like one operates the NA one, but nobody is going to do that :)

Consider that the TSIO-540 can produce up to 350hp

True, though the MTBF on those is outrageous :)

(the TB21 is not worth it IMO, poor payload

Wait till you put TKS on one :)

The 500kg payload of a standard TB20GT drops to about 350kg with turbo and full TKS, which is roughly full fuel plus 100kg :) A TB21 with TKS is a 2-seater, though a very capable one. But I wouldn't knock it because to expand the payload significantly beyond that, while retaining the range, etc, you need to buy a substantially bigger plane which will cost a packet more to fly.

[M-ONGO]

Of course flapless landings are a non event. I teach them. It's the following comment that I had issue with:

I admit that I rarely check my flaps pre flight. When questioned by copilots, I ask them what they would do if the flaps didn't retract. Cancel the flight?

Firstly - rarely checking a flight control surface is gash.

Secondly - if the flaps don't retract, there is a problem. Do you really want to mess with safety? Let me get this straight, you are condoning not checking flaps as per POH by lowering them fully just incase they don't raise again and you can't fly?

You're personal aircraft I assume you fly your family in?

[achimha]

It is a continuous progression, and I am certain that a NA engine lasts longer than a TN version of the same engine simply because the former spends less time running at a given power output.

Obviously one could operate the TN engine like one operates the NA one, but nobody is going to do that

There is another aspect to it that is in favor of TN versus NA. In order to achieve a certain power setting in % BHP, there are a zillion of MP and RPM combinations available. Most experts would agree, that the lower the RPM, the lower the wear on the engine. With a NA engine, you have to go to higher RPM to get to e.g. 65% at altitude as your max MP will be rather low.

My economy cruise setting at FL120 is 23"/2100rpm (65% BHP), very silent and comfortable. A NA 182 would have do 18"/2400rpm to get to 65%. I would think that my TN actually makes my engine feel more comfortable.

All assuming you keep your CHT + TIT in range. When going turbocharged, then I think high cylinder pressure is an additional factor that can reduce your engine's life.

[peterh337]

Most experts would agree, that the lower the RPM, the lower the wear on the engine

That may be true but I have never seen any data on it.

Keeping other things equal, MP = torque, so producing a given HP at a lower RPM means the torque (i.e. mean cylinder pressure) is higher. So, a lower RPM will produce more wear on bearings, etc. all the way to the contents of the propeller hub.

I think high cylinder pressure is an additional factor that can reduce your engine's life.

Yes; cylinder pressure = torque.

[achimha]

Firstly - rarely checking a flight control surface is gash.

Secondly - if the flaps don't retract, there is a problem. Do you really want to mess with safety? Let me get this straight, you are condoning not checking flaps as per POH by lowering them fully just incase they don't raise again and you can't fly?

You're right of course, it's sloppy and sticking to the POH is best practice.

[achimha]

Most experts would agree, that the lower the RPM, the lower the wear on the engine
That may be true but I have never seen any data on it.


That's the most frustrating thing about all these engine management techniques -- no real data, no scientific evidence and (self declared) experts promoting very different things. Someone manages to run his engine 1000h post TBO and attributes it all to his superior skills. Coincidence becomes causality.

All one can do is gather all information out there and try to form an opinion. Although I don't like the fact that one has to have an opinion on things that appear to be fully determined by the laws of physics :ugh:

I personally like what John Deakin (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/) has to say. Mike Busch (http://www.savvymx.com/index.php/webinar)'s attitude I like as well.

PS: The automobile industry has also shifted to lower RPM / higher MP. Gearboxes with 8 gears, everything turbocharged, etc. Lower RPM = lower friction = higher efficiency. Not sure that engine reliability / longevity has improved though.

[peterh337]

I've read Deakin and Busch too :) But I don't recall them saying that a lower RPM gives a longer engine life for a given HP output.

The big problem with car engine comparisons is that car engines spend most of their life at a very low power, so the reliability of the powerplant as a whole becomes limited by all the ancillaries. Think how often you replace water pumps, hoses, radiators, etc. On a plane, any of these would be a forced landing. The engine itself almost never fails. I recall reading of the Toyota 4L V8 which they developed in the 1980s at a reported cost of $400M. Apparently it has had zero failures and huge numbers have been made and continue to be used. And I've never heard of anybody who has had a mechanical engine failure in their car.

The only apparent consensus I see is that ~ 65% is a good point to fly at, for a good engine life. It seems to be fairly consistently supported, on the IO360/540 type engines.

Lower RPM should definitely reduce friction losses, and it appears to work better at LOP mixtures, to assist correct combustion timing of lean mixtures. Certainly, my best range is achieved at 2200rpm, full throttle, FL100/120.

I am sure Lyco have the data but they keep it quiet for legal reasons. They face a constant barrage of warranty claims and publishing any variation of operating procedures is an implicit admission of the previous ones being not correct.

[dont overfil]

I think the manual flaps on the Arrow are a positive advantage. While I love the C182 I fly the flaps are so slow. The latest models are painfully so.

Achimha,
Why would you fly a C182 at 18"/ 2400 unless on approach? 2400 is max rpm. I use 22"/ 2000rpm for economy. Light weight it gives 120kts and 9.5usg per hour. (C182T normally aspirated).

Edited to add.. Landing a C182 flapless makes it very easy to strike the tail.

D.O.

[achimha]

Why would you fly a C182 at 18"/ 2400 unless on approach? 2400 is max rpm. I use 22"/ 2000rpm for economy. Light weight it gives 120kts and 9.5usg per hour. (C182T normally aspirated).

That's what the POH says you need for 65% cruise at FL120 with ISA conditions. At FL120, 18" is the max MP. Of course you can fly lower, you can fly slower but I thought 65% and FL120 are sensible parameters to make my point about turbo normalizing and lower RPMs for a given power setting:)

[dont overfil]

Aah!:ok:

D.O.

[Cobalt]

The most plausible explanation for TN engines not making TBO while the same engine as NA version routinely makes it would be the operating pattern - anyone who buys a tourer with turbocharging is more likely to fly it at a higher altitude than the TN's, while still developing 65-75% power. This means longer climbs, longer descents, and worse cooling during the cruise --> hotter cylinders and steeper temperature changes.

While the above can all be mitigated by careful engine management, the TN engine is probably more prone to develop cylinder and head problems than the same NA engine, even if they both are flown at the same cruise power setting.


break, break,


Regarding not checking flaps. Here is a cautionary tale. One of our training C152 recently developed a fault where you could extend the flaps, but NOT retract them (sticky microswitch). Any instructor teaching a PFL with a heavy student on a hot day would have had a nasty surpise on go-around... I'd rather spend the few seconds during the pre-flight [what's the big deal?] than end up in a field. Yes, some checks on some checklists can be a bit anal, but checking all control surfaces is NOT one of these!!!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Did most of my IFR training on PA28s at large airports with minimum 140KIAS on final and it was a real challenge finding that lever on the floor, pulling it with force and at the same time trying to not lose the glideslope :) .

Maybe you found the flaps hard to apply at 140 knots because the flap limit speed is 103 knots...................

[achimha]

Maybe you found the flaps hard to apply at 140 knots because the flap limit speed is 103 knots...................

That explains why the flaps fell off every second time! Reducing to Vfe was obviously part of the procedure.

[englishal]

A few observations...

Vfe refers to maximum flap. We can put out 5 degrees at 150 kts, dunno what it is on a PA28 though.

I don't always check flap operation but I always visually check that both flaps have deployed the same amount (we normally use 20 deg of flap for T/O).

We fly a Turbocharged aeroplane fitted with an EDM830. Rarely do CHT's or TIT ever get near red line and during the cruise the CHTs are in the 300F range, even at 30"/2400 which is a nice cruise. They never go above 400F even in the climb. The engine has never entered a shock cooling regime, even slamming the throttle shut and pointing the nose down, so they are pretty durable.

We always idle until the TIT drops to below 800F before shut down (couple of mins).

The TBO on our engine is 1800 hrs, on the NA version it is 2000 hrs, so perhaps the reduced TBO has been taken into account in the design. When we bought the aeroplane it had 1610 hrs on the engine and although it didn't need a rebuild, as the engine needed a shock load inspection we decided to get it zero timed.

Finally, the obvious choice is the Commander ;) (Ok, I am biased, I love the TB20 too).

[peterh337]

The Commander is quite similar in many ways to the TB20.

I think that the bigger challenge with a Commander is finding one recent enough, in a good condition.

It's a bit like looking for a TB10 in a good condition. Very very few about, due to poor sales after the initial spurt in the early and mid 1980s.

[Peter Geldard]

As I wrote earlier, the choice of an aircraft is nearly always a compromise based on what factors the pilot does/does not want.
I fully acknowledge 'Cows geting bigger's comments that an Arrow IV: Less responsive in pitch.
Faster approach speeds = longer landing distance.
A 'feeling' that the aircraft really doesn't want to fly when taking off.
These are all factors which one can quickly and easily cope with.
Because the Arrow IV Turbo is a complex (with the above characteristics) I would not have thought that it should be used for training; rather for what it is good at: long distance touring.
But the statements: don't even consider the T tail - a ridiculous change that brought nothing positive to the aircraft.
and the T-tail is an absolute pig to fly should not go unchallenged.
When Piper introduced the T tail they made great claims that because the fins are above the prop-wash it resulted in a far smother and comfortable ride in the cruise. Having met and shared experiences with many other Arrow IV owners - not least in the States - I would concur with that.
As some 98% of my flying is in the cruise, this compensation is/was a valuable one in my making my choice.

[Flying Finn 777]

Just some truths about owning a Turbo Arrow IV, which i had the pleasure of owning for 12 years... was a 1982 model with less than 400 TTAF/E when we bought it in 1992 .I flew approx 400 hours in both an Arrow 4 Turbo and a non turbo Arrow 4 . The Turbo was a much better performer above 7500 feet , with TAS + 20 K tas and could climb over bad weather at 900 - 1000 fpm whereas the non turbo was often down to 400 - 500 fpm climb above 7500 feet.. Flight planning was at K 140 - 145, using 9- 10 gph, but 14 in climb ! i tended to fly up to 4.5 hours at FL 45 - Fl 105 on most journeys accross Europe , typically Liverpool to Belgium then on after refueling in Ostend or the Channel Islands to either Germany or Netherlands or South of France.
The T tail did have its issues on rotation but if you trim it slightly aft it does rotate fully loaded ,but not as fast as a conventional tail, add 100 meters from experience. Sadly, the non turbo arrow 4 i learned on at Liverpool in the 1990 s was written off when flown by a low houred pilot, fully loaded, who tried to get airborne out of a 450 meter strip ! It was never going to happen , could have told him that !
The Continental engine needs careful cooling when decending from FL 's as the front pots never make TBO and they loose compression with a rebuild bill of £ 3000 minimum.
The Turbo Arrow was never cheap to service and the first engine had a crank failure with only TT400 hours , landed in a field in Southern Ireland, unmarked ( well done Phil ) and was lifted out by Irish Helicopters to Cork for a new engine (supplied foc Continental ) well almost on the basis we didnt sue them ! They supplied a factory new engine with the upgraded T crank, ( thick Wall shaft ) to keep us quiet , but we did have to compensate the farmer for destryoed crops thats all , plus a £2000 helicopter lift fee !
The Turbo Arrow is a fab plane for the money, not ideal for low houred PPLs just out out of a C 172, but easy to fly , just keep the power on ,when landing and it will grease on, chop the power too early particularly with a three blade prop and it will sink quite fast, and bend a few Oleos !
The 3 axis auto pilot is a must on a complex single , particularly on long flights in IMC, when your work load can be high , and the auto trim function earns its keep.
A good local maintenance organisation is a must on a Turbo Arrow.
I miss the old bird !

[sevenstrokeroll]

I've flown the Piper Turbo Arrow IV and offer this:

You are ''used'' to some planes which feel and handle differently. Take the time to become proficient with the Piper.

Make darn sure you do a weight and balance and you will likely need some ballast in the cargo area to make the plane fly within its envelope with full gas and two in the front.

It has no cowl flaps as I recall so that makes things a bit easier

AS to landing gear...it is the simplest system for retractable gear I can think of. and it will save your butt if you ever forget.

It is a different plane...get some lessons and you can make it sing. I've jumped that thing off the ground so fast it would make your head spin (but not the plane).

the flap handle is great...simple reliable and just get used to it

[silverknapper]

Agree with the last two. Far too many people sharing 'flying club expert' opinions about T tails. A friend has one and I rate it highly. A fantastic IFR tourer. It's not the right airplane for everyone. Your mission may not suit it, nor your experience levels or skill levels. But if you can operate it well, not scrimp on maintenance and need a machine for going places it's well worth consideration.

[Fuji Abound]

I use to fly a turbo arrow a lot. I agree, I actually really liked the Arrow. It feels really solid, is incredibly docile and purrs along.

Obviously it is pretty dated compared with more recent offerings but you know that any way.

So much will depend what you intend to do with the aircraft. You know it will make a very good tourer and it will make a pretty good all weather aircraft (it is a good instrument platform and ability to climb above the weather, although it lacks deice (I assume none have boots)), you are going to be limited on suitable airfields and the handling is hardly going to excite, everyone can look after Piper's they are entirely known quantities so maintenance will have no more surprises that the state of the aircraft when you buy it.

[carltonm]

The most plausible explanation for TN engines not making TBO while the same engine as NA version routinely makes it would be the operating pattern
May I add some information based on a Arrow 3 Turbo expierance. It is well established in the USA, that you will only get around 1260 Hours before compression pressures drop below acceptable levels.

This is generally put down to using Max Power settings on Take Off, of 41" MP and Max Prop. By reducing if runway length available to Take Off settings of 35"-37" MP and Max Prop, will allow the engine to reach close to it's TBO of 1800 Hours. At sea level it normally increases the Take Off run by 100 metres max.

The only thing I had heard against the T Tail is that on Landing, control effect is lost by lack of air flow over the elevator, on the Arrow 3 the prop wash maintians control, given that most people land an Arrow with a trickle of power to prevent sink.

Hope this helps.

[Pilot DAR]

A few thoughts about the T tail Arrows. They are delightful planes, though require some pilot familiarization if the pilot has not flown T tail similarly sensitive aircraft before. Anyone competent in a Tomahawk would be fine in a T tail Arrow (engine, propeller and gear considered).

The auto landing gear system may have been disabled some time ago, there was a Service bulletin for that for Piper.

I would hesitate to buy a "legacy" Piper now, as the parts support and technical support from Piper is poor. There are special parts (like primary structure wing parts) which are no longer available at all, and I know of an Arrow which has literally been abandoned because of minor, but irreparable corrosion (a one inch spot) on the wing spar. I had to approve another for special dispensation following hail damage which on any Cessna would be considered negligible damage. It was a very involved (costly) approval. If the plane is in perfect condition, okay, but the slightest maintenance glitch on the future could become a big problem fast.

[Ellemeet]

There are enough nice fresh Commanders out there to find.

Running a turbocharged engine means use extreme caution with the engine management. First of all .. install a proper gem with per cylinder read out .. like mvp 50 / edm830 / insight avionic G3 or g4.. Secondly make sure you run rich of peak.

Lop on a turbocharged engine is a good way of cutting a large part of your tbo.

Thr reward of a turbo charged is you fly higher and a bit faster. the downside is .. you burn fuel .. a lot.

Lop I can go as low as 12.5-14 Gph .. Rop it is more like 16-18. But that is a lot cheaper than an early overhaul.

[jecuk]

Lop on a turbocharged engine is a good way of cutting a large part of your tbo.
Lop I can go as low as 12.5-14 Gph .. Rop it is more like 16-18. But that is a lot cheaper than an early overhaul.

What a load of rubbish. While there is a lot of misinformation on this, have you ever really studied the subject?

The problem with this question is that we all love our own aircraft and efficiency depends on mission. So for me a PA-46 is the best single ever.

[Ellemeet]

Yes I have studied the subject.

Offcourse there are camps pro and con.. but when you start reading through all the forums the big picture you can derive is that lop with a turbocharged engine is not a good idea.

Ever since I installed the G3 engine management has become a very refined task. It is amazing how much it can differ from old steam gauges.

p.s.
running rop or lop on a tc engine has nothing to do with airframe. The PA46 is a fantastic plane ... but you will laugh when you see me sitting in the driver seat.. if you can shoehorn me into there (serious.. no yoke).

[jecuk]

There are a variety of views but I think you (and the OP) should be very careful about getting engine mgmt views from forums. I think the "GAMI" view that running LOP is always preferred from a mechanical sympathy perspective in cruise is compelling.

And you are right - getting into the front seats in a PA-46 is tricky for anyone other than a child. A nice place to sit when you are in though.

[Ellemeet]

Hi Jecuk

even if I do sit there .. I have toput my head on my (right) shoulder. The fuselage is to small for me.

I am aware of the Gami story. They use it to sell there product. The real good thing about Gami is that they refine their injectors so well that they compensate for the normal differences in cooling which are inevitable by design. The result is that they get the temperature spread real low .. 5-10 degrees typically. Because of that you need less fuel to cool a hotter cylinder .. while using excessive on another cylinder which is cool enough.

Having said that my 114 was equipped with an analogue gauge which only shows one cylinder (I believe nr 3), with a red line at 500, and an old 603 gem which nobody really understood as I clearly found out.

I switched that for a Insight Avionics G3 and now for the bigger G4 and now have per cylinder readout, yellow starting at 410 and typically in high speed cruise I will aim for 400. My analogue gauge at times reads the same but sometimes also reads something entirely different like 450.

My spread is within 10 degrees.

Now with a real good gem like the G4/mvp50/edm830 you can really run a tight ship with fuel management. The gami s will help you with to the low spread.

Now probably 85% of all tc engines (especially older than 2000) are not equipped with all this and still they go running lop which a lot of people also not understand how to do it properly and I believe the forum statistics derive probably from this.

However .. a complete overhaul of my Engine will run somewhere allong the lines of € 50.000 so I prefer to treat her very gentil and thus remain running rop at high speed cruise. It is also what Lycoming advises .. rop for a tc. lop for many normally aspirated engines.

When I got here 3 years ago the engine was not at all running nicely. Now she runs silky smooth, also on idle.

[Desert185]

Having instructed in conventional tail Arrows for ~1,000 hrs a number of years ago, I found the 180/200 hp Arrows to be solid, dependable airplanes. The T-tail version would not be my choice, though, for many of the negative reasons expressed here.

Unless, one flies in a mountain environment on a frequent basis, having a normally aspirated engine would eliminate complexity and maintenance $$, and yield sufficient power (particularly in the 200hp version) for flatland duties.

[dirkdj]

Ellemeet,

You may want to download the presentation 'Engine management for IR pilots' that I wrote, it is available on the PPLIR website.

What GAMIjectors do is to bring the fuel flow where each individual cylinder reaches Peak EGT closer together. There are several reasons why they don't all peak together. CHT differences are dependent on baffling and airflow.

Cowling efficiency and baffling make up a large part of the reliability differences between identical turbocharged engines for example on Mooneys or Piper Arrows.

I don't hesitate to fly a TurboNormalized Bonanza at 85% power, LOP, the engine loves it. (With proper instrumentation of course).

[Ellemeet]

Will do... but reading back your post I am basically saying the same.

What I also say is that many people do not know how to really properly manage their engine and with a TC that makes for extra wear.

I have seen FI's and many other people look very impressively to a Gem with bars and basically they had no idea.

A proper gem is a first requirement.

[dirkdj]

The mixture control is the most under-teached flightcontrol during PPL training. I say flightcontrol because it certainly can have a profound effect on the flightpath of your aircraft if misused.

[Ellemeet]

looked through your presentation and allthough a lot seems comprehensible I believe a cup of coffee with the verbal explanation might be a lot better.

:8

[dirkdj]

Give me a call when you are near EBKT and I will accept a tea with biscuits.

[oldflyguy]

The most maligned are the Turbo ARROW IV'S. This is usually by people that flew one "once" or knew of someone that flew one. First some facts. I have 150 Hours in Cessnas of some sort which include Cutlas RG's & Cardinal RG's, so I did not grow up on Low Wings. Fact number 2 I have 60+ Hours in Mooneys from Executives, to 231, and 252's. And I have over 100 hours in Arrow's, Archers, Warriors and turbo saratogas. So I can't be accused of being Biased due to lack of trying other things. I Now own a TURBO ARROW IV with a MERLIN Wastegate. and have put about 80 Hours in 6 months of ownership. Facts... Nothing out there can haul as much as fast and be legal as the Turbo Arrow that doesnt cost 5 times as much to buy. different airplanes can beat it in different catagories but they don't have the full package of capability. With 50 Gallons of Fuel I can load 707 lbs of payload and fly from Atlanta to Houston at 12,500 ft at 160 kts at 12 GPH with legal reserves. You try that with a Mooney and you will have enough Gas to fly an hour or so. The Merlin wastegate is what makes the Turbo Arrow the capable machine it is. It didn't add much weight at all and it changed critical altitude to 18,000 from 12,000. That means it is significantly faster in all regimes. at 75% I see about 147 kts down low after 10,000 I see about 154 knts and at 12,000 it starts to top 160 kts. Now thats not nearly as fast as a Mooney with the same amount of GAS but I am hauling way more payload. As for handling... I actually prefer the T-TAIL as it is more stable at altitude in Turns. As for takeoff I don't notice any real difference in my Arrow IV and the Arrow II I rented and flew to Tennessee to check out My IV. I flew them back to back within minutes of each other. Stabilators require a hefty pull unless you are setting trim to nose up past neutral. I got an Arrow 2 up to 85 MPH with neutral trim and it never lifted off till I pulled back. Certainly not like a Cessna that just flys off the runway by itself. The CFI doing my biannual can attest to that. For Me the Arrow IV was the perfect plane. Because I am 260 LBS and most of my friends are over 200 lbs. I loved Mooneys when I was young and 100 lbs lighter and all my friends were twigs. In My T Arrow IV I can have me and my son In the Front seat (total 490 lbs) throw the full 72 Gallons usable in the plane Add 70 lbs of luggage And still have plenty of performance and range to go to Denver from Houston non-stop and never be close to being outside of W&B. Or Reserves. Run Those Numbers with some other planes at that weight.

[AN2 Driver]

It is certainly true that Arrows (as well as other PA28 variants of 180hp +) are great load carriers. I saw then when I was evaluating my ride, yet for me, the situation was different. Yea, I'd have loved to get an Arrow or TB20 for the range and speed but could not afford either, both at the time (2009) for the money to buy and to keep. I looked at a wonderful Arrow 2 but when I saw their maintenance bills, I had to bow out as they were double of what I had previously seen on a normal PA28-180.

Then again, for an aircraft you want to travel in, speed is something very important and it does save you money. Yes, a 150 kt airplane is more expensive to rent or own than a 90 kt PA28-140 but if you look at the cost per distance, they can get cheaper. I did a roughly 20 hour roundtrip in my airplane at 140 kt (Mooney M20C) which in a 90 kt plane would have needed 30 hours! Well, 20 hours Mooney are cheaper than 30 hours PA28, a lot cheaper actually.

I settled for my Mooney M20C (180hp carburetted engine) because for me it was the perfect compromise between affordable upkeep and performance. With manual gear and flaps I found maintenance costs about 10% on top of what I'd have paid had I bought that old Cherokee 180, but hey, it flies 30 kts faster at less fuel per hour. And it will carry 280 kg (617 lb) with full 52 USG of fuel over 600 NM or up to 900 lb with half full, which will allow for some 250 NM plus reserves. For me, it was the ONE affordable airplane with acceptable speed and range. And I felt it was better to get on with it and fly rather than spend another 2 years looking for that elusive fliwatüt which I can't afford but would tick a few boxes more...

It's surely nice if you can select the ideal airplane you would like for your mission and have the funds to do so. Not many of us do however. In which case, it is just as well to go for a compromise and find out how to use it best.

In any case, most of us who have their own airplane will think theirs is the BEST and everyone who doesn't see their point is just being silly. Well, we are different people, folks! One likes this, the other that.

What I have seen of the Arrow, it is a lovely traveller and not more or less problematic than other aircraft, if a bit on the thirsty side. I'd fly one any time, it did remind me a bit of the Senecas I flew before. It is still a very different animal to the fixed gear PA28's and rightly so. 20-30 kts more will demand some differences.

[oldflyguy]

Correct me if I am wrong but the C was a Ranger? I used to fly a C with the Johnson Bar Gear Lever. Was a lot of fun and a great simple and fast aircraft. I have about 50 hrs in C,E's,and F,s I seem to recall the E's had that kind of Lever for sure. Loved to play now you see it now you don't with the gear but woah baby you better get them stowed before reaching 85 MPH or you needed to be Swarzenegger. I really looked hard at a Mooney again as I had over 60 hours in them but alas they just don't fit me too well at my fat boy weight. But every Time I fly into Kerrville and see that now closed Mooney Factory just sitting there I think. If Only I was a hundred pounds skinnier... Certainly The older C's & E's were much better at hauling people that weren't twigs than the 252's etc. Have a good day, you have a great plane.

[AN2 Driver]

Hi,

Correct me if I am wrong but the C was a Ranger?

Mine is a Mark 21, the '65 "C" Model. It does have the Johnson Bar and hydraulic flaps as well as the 180hp carburetted O360 A1A. That model became the Ranger in later times, some sources say in 1974 but I believe earlier. The ranger is pretty close to the Mark 21, but has a few differences such as the retracable step which is automatic on mine is I believe gone or hand driven with the Ranger. More "C" Models have been produced of any Mooney than any of the others, followed by the 201.

I used to fly a C with the Johnson Bar Gear Lever. Was a lot of fun and a great simple and fast aircraft. I have about 50 hrs in C,E's,and F,s I seem to recall the E's had that kind of Lever for sure. Loved to play now you see it now you don't with the gear but woah baby you better get them stowed before reaching 85 MPH or you needed to be Swarzenegger.

Yep, that is right. All of them had it until the late 1960ties when electrical gear and flaps became optional and then standard. I like it, because it is pretty fail safe, as long as you remember to lock the gear properly in the downlock. Some people found out that this takes more than just sticking the johnson bar's top into the receptible, you need to push it in with force until the locker pin "clicks". Forget that, and things can become expensive really fast.

I really looked hard at a Mooney again as I had over 60 hours in them but alas they just don't fit me too well at my fat boy weight.

That is what I thought as well, as at least my flight surgeon calls me obese. But I fit in the seat pretty much without any problem and do not think the "C" is narrower than, say, an Arrow or a normal Cherokee, but it is not as high in the cabin. The main problem are the back seats, which really fit children but not much else. I flew an Arrow before the Mooney and could not really see too much of a difference. Both of them are planes where you better know your passengers well because you are quite close to them during the flight. But it is over much faster too :)

But every Time I fly into Kerrville and see that now closed Mooney Factory just sitting there I think. If Only I was a hundred pounds skinnier... Certainly The older C's & E's were much better at hauling people that weren't twigs than the 252's etc.

Yes, the C and E are the Mooneys with reasonable payload, thanks to partly the smaller tanks (I wish I had the 64 USG of the "F" and "J/201) and engine weight. The worst must be the Ovation and Acclaim on LR tanks. the 252 is by many regarded as the "best" compromise in terms of speed, payload and endurance, personally I think the 201 holds that closer.

Have a good day, you have a great plane.

Thanks! Yea I love what I got for my money, I also like the costs so far (much less than comparable planes) and ease of maintenance. For me, who is a normal employee with a normal salary, the M20C is the ideal airplane I can afford and which will go much faster than anything else I could think of financially. And btw, one of them made it to Oskosh from Europe a few years back.

[AbzAv8r]

What I have seen of the Arrow, it is a lovely traveller and not more or less problematic than other aircraft, if a bit on the thirsty side. I'd fly one any time, it did remind me a bit of the Senecas I flew before. It is still a very different animal to the fixed gear PA28's and rightly so. 20-30 kts more will demand some differences.

I have around 150 hours in Arrows and a dozen or so in the Seneca.

I reckon an Arrow is hard to beat in terms of speed/price/flyability/costs for the average private pilot.

If I could find an Arrow share for sale up here in sunny Northern Scotland, I'd buy it tomorrow.

[oldflyguy]

I certainly am not maligning any type of plane, certainly not one that in my younger years I dreamed of owning. Certainly body types may differ. This was just the facts that I observed on my quest to buy a 252, 262 conversion, or a Rocket conversion and the reason I started looking elsewhere. Seating.. The big difference is an Arrow has mostly straight sides where the seat is And a Mooney is more curved. The Mooney you sit closer to the floor with your feet out more. Now I am talking about the ones I was looking to buy now. I can't compare directly that with ones I recall flying when I was 160lbs and 25 years younger. The 252's had my butt pushed so far to the right that the console dug into my right leg. You can look at where the seat is and see that even though the cabin at its widest is about the same as the arrow because of that curvature that helps make the Mooney so speedy the hip area width is not the same. I sit much more upright in the Arrow. I can easily move my feet right and left and prop one leg up. I flew several Mooneys and sat in many more. I felt more cramped in the Mooney with a 180 lb guy next to me than I did when I took a 290 guy with me in the right seat of my Arrow. I really REALLY wanted a MOONEY but for me. I was extremely uncomfortable as in The 252 I felt like I was in a cocoon with my legs captured in a hole and almost straight out. Now all of that is probably dependent as I said to start on My Height verses my weight. I don't know. But that is in fact the reason I abandoned looking at 252's and sought a different answer. Have a great day..

[simonrennie]

I set up the above group years ago to compare notes of other TA3 owners and there are only 25 in the UK the only group share I know of up your way is the one based at Prestwick. I have owned G-SHUG since 1988 and now have some 1500 hours on her. Its not inexpensive flying but excellent value overall and unlike most in the UK I know the long term figures as opposed to a number of groups who do it all much cheaper .......... short term. Sadly a 1/3 of the UK owners were never even interested in making contact back with me whereas 3 or 4 of us have had some quite significant benefits from knowing the others.

[Savas]

Hi all, I am seriously considering a Arrow 4, turbo, 1972.
I have read entire thread, and I notice everyone who owns one is totally pleased by its performance.
I did a test flight in it, last week, and yes did notice the pitch heaviness, but almost fell like that is cool, as it feels like a bigger aircraft.
When I first did convo on a182rg, it felt so much bigger than my 182, same here, so what.
Any new input would be appreciated.
Are you find engines make 1800 TBO.
Is 3 bladed prop better than 2 bladder on this machine.

[rb5y]

I have owned a 1980 Turbo Arrow IV since 1997 and and also flown the airplane as a CFI since the model’s introduction in 1979. I have +1200 hours in the T-tail. There are lots of helpful comments above, but I would like to summarize the following:

The T- was a designed for style. The “stabalator” (its not a horizontal stabilizer and elevator) has 13% less surface are than its Arrow III brothers and sisters. Stabalators themselves fly somewhat differently than a horizontal stabilizer and elevator combination. The t-tail design, with 13% less surface, has less drag and less lift than the tail configuration on the Arrow III. So fly the Arrow IV as it was designed. Your job as the pilot is to understand the design and operate the machine. Here are things I consider when flying the Arrow IV, T-tail.

Weight and balance is important. Calculate the weight and balance for both intended takeoff configuration and intended landing configuration for every flight until you know the airplane “cold”. Plan the airplane for “slightly” aft loading. If you are flying 2 people in the front seats consider up to 50 lbs. in the baggage area. This is also a good way to have a fully equipped survival gear pack and equipment set-up.

Nail your approach and landing speeds, trim profile and flair. The airplane will give you instant feedback that you are sloppy on speed or flaring too high and running out of airspeed and stabalator before that magic touch down 8 kts above stall and 6 millimeters above the runway. If you flair too high – go around before the stabalator quits. Don’t stall the tail and slam the nose on the runway. The laminar flow wing on the plane give a very gentle power off stall. However, the stablator quits before the wing does. Nail you airspeeds. Go up and practice power off stalls in various landing weights and configurations noting your airspeeds. Subtract 5 kts for ground effect from your notes and then go practice on the runway.

Use a takeoff briefing with speeds before every take off. Brief your landing checklist with speeds for every leg of the approach and flair.

If you want to fly bigger faster planes in your future, get these disciplines now. It will really pay off.

The airplane is low cost, low fuel burn, 190 MPH true at high altitude and pleasure to own. Mine is turbo charged which could be another 3 pages 😊.

I hope this helps.

Rb45y

[PiperDude]

I agree. I bought an Arrow IV some years ago and have flown it all over the USA. The annual is more expensive than a J3, but you do get a solid ride with decent speed. The "heavy nose" on take-off is no big deal if you use full up trim, 10 degrees of flaps and use 65 kts as Vr. After TO, I just hold the electric trim forward for a few seconds and I am in a stable climb. After my first landing, I knew what to expect from the stableator and haven't thought about it since. It does a magnificent job with cross wind landings.

IMO, the bad rep is from pilots who don't understand the characteristics of this airplane, but that's ok. I got a big discount because of the rumors and a darned nice airplane to fly.

I would agree that the T-tail is an absolute pig to fly.

That's a little harsh. I believe if we were to spend an hour in the pattern I could teach you the characteristics and methods of flying this airplane, your opinion would improve considerably. This is a sleeper - actually a pretty good touring airplane.

[27/09]

Mr Piper built a much much better aircraft in every respect than the Arrow, the PA24. Horsepower for horsepower there is nothing from brand B, C, M, or P that can beat the PA24 for speed, payload, space, usable C of G, and range.

[27/09]

The Turbo Arrow IV is a very good performer but IMO the T tail does make it a pig compared to the Arrows with the stabilator in the correct place. I haven't flown the turbo but I have flown the normally aspirated Arrow IV and the Arrow III. The T tail aircraft require more runway to get airborne and they dutch roll in turbulence. While the extra runway may not be an issue for many pilots, no amount of technique will fix the dutch roll issue. The dutch roll issue isn't unique to the T tail Arrow, other T tail light aircraft are also afflicted with this trait.

[Jhieminga]

The "heavy nose" on take-off is no big deal if you use full up trim, 10 degrees of flaps and use 65 kts as Vr. After TO, I just hold the electric trim forward for a few seconds and I am in a stable climb.
I'm sure I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're taking off with the trim outside the take-off range. A very unwise thing to do as an electric trim problem could ruin your day.