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?

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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)

Oh gosh...

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...


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.

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.

Seriously? :ugh: :ugh:

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

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.

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:

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.

Lighten up. Germans not understand jokes? ;)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)
True, though the MTBF on those is outrageous :)

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Yes; cylinder pressure = torque.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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:)

Aah!:ok:

D.O.

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!!!

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 !

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.