Piper Turbo Arrow IV .. Am I nuts??

[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?

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

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?

[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

I personally like what John Deakin has to say. Mike Busch'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!

D.O.