Piper Turbo Arrow IV .. Am I nuts??
 

Hi there!

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

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

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



cheers
maehhh

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

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


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

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

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

G

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

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

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

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

G

Weight and BALANCE?
 

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

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

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

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

SGC

:)

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

Which is not very useful :) I recall reading a similar story about a Bonanza, I think. In comparison, the TB20 is practically impossible to load outside the envelope without exceeding the MTOW.

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

There are far better PA28s out there.

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

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

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

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

Your purchase budget is a big player.

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

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

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

G

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

However from a renters point of view:

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

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

Piper Turbo Arrow IV
 

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

W&B
 

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

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

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

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

That's a problem I find with any 28, you can't have two hefty guys in the front and full tanks. I heard (don't know if there's any truth in it) that some 28s have the battery in the back end which relieves the forward CG problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like my Horizon!

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

Happy landings to all

3 Point

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

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

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

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

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

SGC

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...rh337/tb20.jpg

Peter

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

Pace

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

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

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

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

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

From your excellent website Not so fantastic visibility from either front seat

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

Comfy seats relative to other SEP's

Fairly decent rear seating position

to that, I will agree.

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

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

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

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

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

That goes with aerodynamic efficiency. The designer will always aim for Vs to be just below the max permitted for SE (61kt IIRC) which is why all the IFR tourers have a Vs of 59-60kt, and Vbg follows directly from that.
I agree; you cannot stick a jackboot into it too many times, whereas you can into a steam boiler panel. I don't see a solution however, you will have the same issue with modern glass cockpits. One cannot just throw a headset on it, like so many people do. One has to show people where to put stuff, and where to grip to adjust the seats, etc.
I don't see that. It is much better than anything "old" I have flown (PA28, C152, C172, etc). Other pilots comment similarly.
I don't think the TB is suitable for kicking around the school scene. But there are other factors. Few operators want to train ab initio in a retractable (I believe TB20s were/are used in Indonesia etc) which leads to the TB10 etc and they were hugely overpriced during most of their manufacturing life. If you looked at the deals Cessna were offering on C172s, the TB10 was about 30% more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

why, oh why?

Peter

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

Pace

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

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...ehsi-panel.jpg

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

TB20 strong points are

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

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

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

Hello Peter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

:)

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

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

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

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

G