Piper Turbo Arrow IV .. Am I nuts??
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Nuts For You Just the facts Jack
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrow IV Guy and the Mooney M20 C
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.
Hi,
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.
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.
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 
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don'T fit...
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..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watford
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAUG Turbo Arrow Users Group
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Kirkland, WA, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
