Just curious, what did your transition training say about taking off at an airport around 5600'?
Piper Arrow flood on the market
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
Just curious, what did your transition training say about taking off at an airport around 5600'?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
We didn't cover that because our home airport is at 2,100. But I later did my instrument cross-country lesson in this plane in the middle of the summer, and one of our stops was at Rock Springs (KRKS), which is 6,765 MSL and had a DA closer to 10,000. With full tanks, me, and my instructor on board, we had no trouble taking off and climbing back up to our en route altitude of 12,000 (which was the MEA and which represented a DA of 15,000). I'm sure I just set the power for full throttle (which would have given less than 25") and 2500 rpm for that climb.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Don't get your hopes up... I think it's pretty much plane by plane, because the only Arrow I (180hp) that I've flown was a dog. Of course, most of my Arrow time is in IIIs (200hp, taper wing, straight tail) which I would expect to be better, and I was mostly flying a 182 in that time frame, but still. It was not a climber.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,724
- Display Name
Display name:
Warlock
My recently deceased 180R was a 140 Knot plane from 6500 to 9500 sometimes a tad more...Speed mods, but a STC Scimitar prop seemed to be the biggest contributor...way faster then any tapered wing 200 I have flown...the short Hershey Bar wing was faster.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wow! I've flown quite a few Arrows, including all four variants, but they were mostly stock. The Arrow IV was the only one that'd do 140, which I believe was a result of the horizontal tail being up out of the propwash. That particular airframe was NOT a stellar example...
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I cruise at 130 KTAS with relatively modest power settings around 65%. My plane has a 3-blade prop (I think it was put on by a former owner to avoid ADs related to the original 2-blade prop). I would definitely believe that 140 KTAS would be attainable with a more modern prop, some speed mods, the right balance, and a 75 or 80% power setting.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
In other words, a 250HP single by another name. Aka wish in one hand and ---t on the other. My 74' 28R-200 with not the best cosmetics but some gap seals does around 130-132 KTAS at 9gph, though these days I'm dragging a couple knots below the 130 TAS threshold @ 65% when cold or heavy, which is understandable. It's ****ing me off though lol.
I'm told turbo arrows can do 150KTAS circa 10-12K @ 12gph, and 1 knot gain/loss per thousand feet change. Seems a bit of a wild claim, Pics or it didn't happen kinda thing for me. Haven't seen an actual video/picture proof, but if true, that's actually not that bad in order to stick with the savings of the PA-28 airframe, which I'm obviously a big cheerleader of. Sure, the TSIO is not a great way of doing it in the least, but frankly it's kinda tempting. That's about what a carb comanche or stock debbie does at 2k lower or so on the same fuel, and since beggars can't be choosers (we'll never get part 23 re-write to slap a 540 on an Arrow) I suppose it's worth a look.
The real improvement with the T-Arrow is the tanks and the climb rate. 72 gallons usable is a real treat for the occasional long distance hop, versus landing every 400NM when IFR. 900+ to 12K (18K critical if variable wastegate equipped) day or night if you're willing to climb it at 40 inches like the good Lord intended is also a big improvement from the NA setup.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,901
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
75% of 180hp = 55% of 250hp.
I have noticed that it doesn't take much to get it to descend like a brick!
I don't remember the true airspeed, but my club had a turbo arrow for a while, and it was loads of fun!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
In the early 1990s I put a couple hundred hours on rented Turbo Arrow IVs from a VNY FBO. I don't think I'd choose to own one myself, but the rental rates were reasonable, so I flew them a lot. One of them, N4296J, was a late 1983 model that had been the cover girl for the 1984 brochure.
Here are some panel shots, and these were all with full cabin loads:
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Do you recall what she did at non-O2 altitudes (10K-12K or so)?
The power settings in those pictures are high as hell too, 32"/2500 at 15K is like 83% power! You truly flew that thing like a rental LOL. Piper truly lost a lot of credibility with the turbo arrow power tables. All one had to do was look at the seneca tables and realize WTF were they thinking?
I did all my commercial and complex training in a Cessna 177RG Cardinal RG, and flew it for fun for years after. I instructed in the Arrow (first generation) and it was a real pain in the butt until they approved the gear override kit.
The Cardinal was by far a more refined, comfortable aircraft and I would love to have one now.
Whose dumb idea was it to remove the retractable/complex from the commercial checkride? I don't remember anyone asking me.
Oh, and the Grumman Tiger is superior to the Arrow for cross country flying, IMHO.
The Cardinal was by far a more refined, comfortable aircraft and I would love to have one now.
Whose dumb idea was it to remove the retractable/complex from the commercial checkride? I don't remember anyone asking me.
Oh, and the Grumman Tiger is superior to the Arrow for cross country flying, IMHO.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Have you thought about a 540 powered Rockwell Commander? Big, roomy, built-like-a-tank tough, two doors, decent baggage capacity. Sort of an "anti-Mooney" aircraft design statement.
They made a 4-cyl turbo version, but that engine is a real oddball Lycoming. I have friends that have owned both. The NA 540 seems the better bet in that airframe.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Yeah the 114 is lance priced, so that's a non starter. However, I really haven't given serious thought to the TC 112 until you brought it up. It certainly fits the comfort and price range upgrade criteria, plus stays in the Lycoming lane....hmmm.Have you thought about a 540 powered Rockwell Commander? Big, roomy, built-like-a-tank tough, two doors, decent baggage capacity. Sort of an "anti-Mooney" aircraft design statement.
They made a 4-cyl turbo version, but that engine is a real oddball Lycoming. I have friends that have owned both. The NA 540 seems the better bet in that airframe.
ETA: disregard. Useful load no worky. Awesome cabin though.
Last edited:
Morgan3820
Ejection Handle Pulled
So what is the take away from all of this? In no particular order.
The only thing slower than an Arrow is the Beech Sierra? But they are more comfortable. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow and live with being slower than the Arrow because speed isn’t everything, unless you’re flying a slow Arrow.
The Cardinal RG is a nicer plane, more refined. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow.
A Tiger is better than an Arrow. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow.
The turbo Arrow has a little better performance than the NA Arrow but Piper did a poor job at engineering the turbo, and who wants a Continental anyway.
You can’t Swap out engines to put more HP in the Arrow.
You need to get an RV-10, nevermind three times the price and years of labor.
You need to get an RV-6,7,8,9...nevermind twice the price and four years of labor and leave the family dog at the ASPCA. Two seat RV’s carry more than a small duffel bag.
And finally....Gee, I wish that I had Lance or Bonanza or Cirrus or twin or turboprop money, but I don’t. Nobody actually said that but that is what they were thinking. Well at least I was. i guess I’ll have to keep my Arrow.
Did I miss anything?
The only thing slower than an Arrow is the Beech Sierra? But they are more comfortable. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow and live with being slower than the Arrow because speed isn’t everything, unless you’re flying a slow Arrow.
The Cardinal RG is a nicer plane, more refined. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow.
A Tiger is better than an Arrow. Should buy one of them instead of an Arrow.
The turbo Arrow has a little better performance than the NA Arrow but Piper did a poor job at engineering the turbo, and who wants a Continental anyway.
You can’t Swap out engines to put more HP in the Arrow.
You need to get an RV-10, nevermind three times the price and years of labor.
You need to get an RV-6,7,8,9...nevermind twice the price and four years of labor and leave the family dog at the ASPCA. Two seat RV’s carry more than a small duffel bag.
And finally....Gee, I wish that I had Lance or Bonanza or Cirrus or twin or turboprop money, but I don’t. Nobody actually said that but that is what they were thinking. Well at least I was. i guess I’ll have to keep my Arrow.
Did I miss anything?
Last edited:
The simple matter is that it's not a profitable aircraft for flight schools and FBOs. The bread and butter on flight schools is plane utilization. I'd have ten 172's (or straight Cherokees) before I'd put in one Arrow. The 172's are going to fly many times a day in two hour blocks. The Arrow is going to wait for the odd commercial student, a person looking for an complex signoff, or an occasional traveller. None of which are money makers.
FlyingTiger
Pre-takeoff checklist
I was taught that as well however I won't pull back until established on crosswind or even a little longer if I am doing a cross country and have a ways to climb. I always felt the rule should be 25-25 once you can turn back and land engine out. 500 agl is not a safety first rule and I'm surprised it's established as the norm.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Here's N4380G (a 1985 PA-28RT-201T) at 6,000 ...
I was going by the '84 Turbo Arrow manual, which said 32.8"/2500 = 75% all the way up.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
.
Yeah we all recognize what that POH says. We also know Piper suspended the laws of physics in order to publish that piece of marketing genius lol. It's long been established there was no physical mechanism by which the TSIO installation in the Turbo Arrow could maintain flat rated power without altitude compensation on its power tables. The answer is he who follows the poh is unknowingly (actually, one should know that, if one didn't find one's license in a Cracker Jack box that is) pulling more than the stated % power the POH is telling them they are. Hope you're sitting down for this....they were lying to you.
As you probably know, it was done in the interest of simplifying things for them poor single engine simpletons (in the eyes of Piper), whereas the identical installation in the seneca ii shows the actual power relationship everybody in the non-flat Earth side of the hobby understands.
At any rate, thanks for the visual references, you sir are a national treasure. We need to curate these offerings for posterity indeed. I can imagine those T-arrows were sweet to fly when they were only 10 years old. Only in this hobby I tell ya, would that utterance would be considered sane LOL.
Here's N4380G (a 1985 PA-28RT-201T) at 6,000 ...
I was going by the '84 Turbo Arrow manual, which said 32.8"/2500 = 75% all the way up.
Yeah we all recognize what that POH says. We also know Piper suspended the laws of physics in order to publish that piece of marketing genius lol. It's long been established there was no physical mechanism by which the TSIO installation in the Turbo Arrow could maintain flat rated power without altitude compensation on its power tables. The answer is he who follows the poh is unknowingly (actually, one should know that, if one didn't find one's license in a Cracker Jack box that is) pulling more than the stated % power the POH is telling them they are. Hope you're sitting down for this....they were lying to you.
As you probably know, it was done in the interest of simplifying things for them poor single engine simpletons (in the eyes of Piper), whereas the identical installation in the seneca ii shows the actual power relationship everybody in the non-flat Earth side of the hobby understands.
At any rate, thanks for the visual references, you sir are a national treasure. We need to curate these offerings for posterity indeed. I can imagine those T-arrows were sweet to fly when they were only 10 years old. Only in this hobby I tell ya, would that utterance would be considered sane LOL.
jbDC9
Pre-takeoff checklist
Umm, on a normally aspirated opposed recip engine, why pull the throttle back at all? Leave it wide open, pull the prop to 2500 and let ‘er climb. I learned this technique 28+ years ago hauling freight in C-310Rs; works great with plenty of power and speed to climb. In my RV-8 (O-360-A1D), I do the same. If cruising up around 8500 or higher, throttle is wide open until I start down. Below that, once leveled off and accelerated, I’ll pull the MP back to 22-24” and prop back to 2350-ish.
Awhile back I flew with a guy in his S35 Bonanza (IO-550) with 4 normal sized peeps on board; after takeoff he pulled back to 24/2400 for “climb power”... holy crap, at that power setting this thing was a pig to climb to 7500’! Wallowing, climbing at 500 fpm. I was dying to push the throttle open, cruise climb at 1000 fpm and boogie up to 7500. But hey, his airplane, not mine...
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
I flew those two T-tails on dozens of business trips around California, and one long 11-day vacation in 1990 that to this day our sons say was their favorite family trip. We flew N4296J from Van Nuys to Grants Pass, Oregon; to Portland, Oregon; to Glacier Park, Montana; to Cortez, Colorado (weather divert from Durango); and back to Van Nuys. It was on the very last leg, half an hour after takeoff from the Kingman AZ fuel stop, that the hydraulic pump took the rest of the day off, and the gear free-fell back down. It was a slow trip back to VNY at 10,500'.
The T-tails were pleasant enough once trimmed out and cruise power set, but they were odd ducks. Power management was funky, as you said, but the T-tail made handling weird, too.
The book says for a normal takeoff, accelerate on the ground to 65-75 KIAS. It'll be more like 75. The stabilator, which is 13% smaller in span and area than that on a Dakota or Archer, is up high, out of the energized propwash, and is not very effective in a level attitude on the ground. Once the nose comes up, and the stabilator dips down and takes a bite of that propwash, it suddenly becomes very effective. Thus you might overcontrol in pitch a bit on takeoff until you get the hang of it. Likewise on landing, as speed bleeds off the stabilator loses effectiveness more quickly than does the low tail, and the nosewheel tends to plop down rather firmly. It must enjoy turbulence, because it wags its tail like a happy puppy - worse than a low-tail PA-28.
Looking at all of the aerodynamic gimmicks on the T-tail stabilator -- fences, fillets and leading-edge slots -- I'd guess that Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting it to fly right.
Short video of a 1992 trip to KMYF in N4296J:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,724
- Display Name
Display name:
Warlock
Mine was part of a new club less than a year old and and this is so correct...I had owned it for four years and would replace it if I could find one set up like it...I think it had every speed mod you could add from speed wingtips, flap gap and hinge covers, wheel covers,antenna clean up and current technology scimitar prop STC...N7430J RIp...
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Did you end up replacing the airplane? I take it the insurance would have settled the claim by now no?
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,724
- Display Name
Display name:
Warlock
No still not settled...latest was trying to establish the the pilot who was killed had enough hours to satisfy the pilot requirements...although he was an ATP with multiple type ratings, Goldstar CFII and worked for the FAA...been over 90 days...
tmyers
En-Route
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,724
- Display Name
Display name:
Warlock
No thread maybe later...sadly this one is not simple...it has to do with the pilot...his occupation and probable pending litigation...facts surrounding this accident could make for a 48 hrs TV documentary...One of the reasons it has been so frustrating...
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Ratings listed with the FAA meet the hours requirement by statute.An ATP would meet policy minimums in earnest. The insurance is obfuscating here for other reasons, as establishing that someone held an ATP is a matter of public record. I'm of course not privy to what other shenanigans are at play regarding the personal life of the deceased. Wait he was an FAA ASI? Holy crap that really would get interesting. The fiefdom doesn't like getting embarrassed by internals....
Any thoughts on the Arrow 180hp vs 200hp? I’m a new pilot awaiting my checkride, took a few lessons in the Arrow and I like it. More stuff to do than the Cessna. Cessnas are nice and easy to fly but a bit slow. Some people here talked about the Cessna 182 but those seemed to be much more expensive (150k+). I was hoping to get in my first plane around 50k with some avionics installed and a mid time engine. Arrow seemed like the next best thing, I like the baggage door as I could open it and my dogs could jump in, although the one cabin door is a drawback, I can deal with it. Space (planning for the dogs in the baggage area), W&B, Speed, Fuel economy, All look good. Anything smaller was either considerably slower or lacked the baggage area. One more question is a comparison I thought about looking into is between the Cirrus SR20 and Arrow too. But Arrow seemed better for me to get hours, do some cross country 2pax+2dogs, not be too upset with a couple hard landings or hangar rash. Insurance quoted me $3800 & $4500 per year for a PPL 55hrs with 0hrs in type and no complex endorsement. Planning to get the complex endorsement and some more hours and running it again. I still have some time.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
I find the 180 to be a dog, especially with an older engine, but the 200 is an underrated airplane. They are slow for what they are, but very cheap to operate.
I am hoping to find a 500-1000hr Arrow 200hp with some avionics. My CFI kept talking about corrosion and there are a number for sale from Florida (my CFI basically said to avoid planes from the southeast) and after reading about the wing separating, kind of scary. A number of planes missing logs or used for instructing and I guess I rather get one that was pampered from an owner who had the plane for a long time.
I flew some trips in a 180 HP Arrow with the Hershey-bar wings last year and it was definitely a dog. Wouldn't make anywhere near book speeds.
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
I have a friend in San Diego who has an Arrow with a new engine and a 430 that he'd be willing to part with.
Awesome, although I’m located in Chicago. I’ll send you a message.
A1Topgun
Cleared for Takeoff
I agree, the Turbo "T" tail is much faster than the "regular" Arrow. I'm on my second one. Above 10K at 30" MAP & 2400 RPM TAS about 145Kts @ 12GPH.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
What fuel flow are you getting at that altitude and power setting combo?Have 2300 hundred hours on my T-Arrow IV. Also have intercooler and Merlyn wastegate, at 12.5 I use 2300 RPM and 26" manifold depending on OAT.
No quirks, except maybe the pilot
I see 150 Knots regularly
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,944
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
When I was getting my complex endorsement years ago my CFI called the glide mode of the Arrow "safe mode", as in it glided like a safe. Boy, howdy, was he right. Several examples drove that point home. The one thing I'll say for that Hershey bar wing Arrow, once the mains touched down that plane was finished flying. I never bounced a landing in that plane.
All my Arrow time (77.4 hours) was in the club's 1969 PA-28R-200, so I can't compare its performance with the 180 hp versions from the previous year, nor against the later variants of the Arrow. The one we had was 2 or 3 knots slower than the club's C-182. Fuel burn was less, but it wasn't as comfortable nor quite as "fast".