Piper Turbo Arrow IV .. Am I nuts??
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
Last edited by Cobalt; 15th May 2012 at 16:22.
Maybe you found the flaps hard to apply at 140 knots because the flap limit speed is 103 knots...................
.Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you found the flaps hard to apply at 140 knots because the flap limit speed is 103 knots...................
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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:
.
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:
and
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.
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
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.
the T-tail is an absolute pig to fly
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.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Wirral
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DF
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 !
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 !
Last edited by Flying Finn 777; 4th Mar 2013 at 19:44.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East Kilbride
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
Moderator
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northants
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by jecuk; 7th Mar 2013 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by Ellemeet; 7th Mar 2013 at 21:55.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northants
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Ellemeet; 8th Mar 2013 at 05:35.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $$, and yield sufficient power (particularly in the 200hp version) for flatland duties.
Unless, one flies in a mountain environment on a frequent basis, having a normally aspirated engine would eliminate complexity and maintenance $$, and yield sufficient power (particularly in the 200hp version) for flatland duties.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.