garyb
Pre-takeoff checklist
Since they're the same airframe, what's to stop someone from putting a Turbo Dakota engine on an Arrow? (Asking for a friend, whose only concern is the laws of physics, not the legalities.)
Piper Arrow flood on the market
- Thread starter brien23
- Start date
Since they're the same airframe, what's to stop someone from putting a Turbo Dakota engine on an Arrow? (Asking for a friend, whose only concern is the laws of physics, not the legalities.)
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
What's the benefit? They are both Continental TSIO-360 200-hp series engines.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
You're stuck with whatever the Type Certificate Data Sheet says. Here's the TCDS for the PA-28 line, listing the engines certified for the various models:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...df1a4c2862582f7006a38db/$FILE/2A13_Rev_59.pdf
Turbo Dakota was certified with the TSIO-360-FB. Some versions of the Turbo Arrow were certified with the TSIO-360-F and some with the TSIO-360-FB. I've no idea of the difference between them.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...df1a4c2862582f7006a38db/$FILE/2A13_Rev_59.pdf
Turbo Dakota was certified with the TSIO-360-FB. Some versions of the Turbo Arrow were certified with the TSIO-360-F and some with the TSIO-360-FB. I've no idea of the difference between them.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,999
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Well, you can't ask "what's to stop someone" and also say "no concern for legalities" in the same sentence.
In any event, i think you meant a NA Dakota engine. A turbo Dakota engine is already installed on an arrow: It's called a turbo arrow. There would be no point to that swap, other than an emotional attachment to the specific serial number airplane you're flying. The answer is once again, nothing physically different, but the legalities says that outside an STC process, you can't swap that engine into a NA mounted airframe. You have no economic incentive to do so, when the same engine is available already on the same airframe under the PA-28R-201T moniker. (engine variants of the TSIO matter little, they're all 200-220HP turbo boosted crappo cylinder Contis, plus or minus a different fuel distribution setup or factory delivered wastegate arrangement)
Last edited:
garyb
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well, you learn something new every day.
Yes, that's what I was thinking (actually, I was thinking of the 235hp Turbo Skylane and incorrectly assumed the Dakota had the same). If one did, could one go experimental? I mostly would want an Arrow with more horsepower.
Yes, that's what I was thinking (actually, I was thinking of the 235hp Turbo Skylane and incorrectly assumed the Dakota had the same). If one did, could one go experimental? I mostly would want an Arrow with more horsepower.
Last edited:
Morgan3820
Ejection Handle Pulled
Nope
MIFlyer
Pattern Altitude
what are we still debating about ? comanche 400. a poster just put some info up a few months ago about some of his flights.
great climb rate, 4 seats...
N1120A
Pattern Altitude
Arrows are underrated personal machines. Their weight means they ride turbulence better than a regular Cherokee, which are better still than high wing Cessnas, and their fuel economy and reasonable speed mean decent legs. You actually tend to get better fuel economy than the carburated, straight legged Tiger (though I prefer the Tiger for other reasons), so you end up with a bit more range. The near 1000 pound ULs help too, though Tigers really only lose about 70-80 pounds to them. They do tend to get warm inside, like any PA28, and their glide ratio is infamously bad if you lose an engine.
The main issue I see with Arrows is that a lot of them have fairly basic panels, as their training basis tended to not require much more than radios and transponders. You have to invest in them, which some people have done, but you are often still looking at hand flying everything.
The main issue I see with Arrows is that a lot of them have fairly basic panels, as their training basis tended to not require much more than radios and transponders. You have to invest in them, which some people have done, but you are often still looking at hand flying everything.
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,951
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
What does the peanut gallery think of owning a higher time former flight school airplane? There are a ton on the market for low prices, but I could imagine they could be mx nightmares. By higher time I mean 8000 hours plus.
Eric Stoltz
Line Up and Wait
Replace Arrow with Sierra and ya gots the same post. However, this is significant, the Sierra **is** faster than an Arrow. This speed is a vertical speed, down, with the engine off. Us Sierra owners carry a brick to toss out and follow for this reason.
Groundpounder, it depends. I have a former flight school plane that has a factory rebuilt engine and decent IFR gizmos for a flight school plane. The problems were some of the hard to reach areas, and parts that Beech no longer has. The BeechAeroClub has done a great job with finding or educating us on owner provided parts. It took 2 annuals to get to all the little things that are easily overlooked over the life of a training plane. Like, some leaks are acceptable, some pulleys don't need to be replaced today, untreated corrosion... All effect that sales price too.
I have also seen former 141 school planes that are as healthy as they were new, just ugly. I knew a guy that bought a UofIllinois orange pumpkin B19 that had like 14,000 hours. It was in great mechanical shape, but it sure did look like a university plane. My Sierra has about 3000 hours of flight school time and needed more work than I cared to admit, but accepted. It is all in the pre buy, and what you are willing to put into it. I budgeted about 10 AMU's for what I wanted to do to the Sierra when I bought it. Turns out, I was almost spot on. Ya can only tell I spent that much by looking at the log book, not the airplane.
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,951
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
Replace Arrow with Sierra and ya gots the same post. However, this is significant, the Sierra **is** faster than an Arrow. This speed is a vertical speed, down, with the engine off. Us Sierra owners carry a brick to toss out and follow for this reason.
Groundpounder, it depends. I have a former flight school plane that has a factory rebuilt engine and decent IFR gizmos for a flight school plane. The problems were some of the hard to reach areas, and parts that Beech no longer has. The BeechAeroClub has done a great job with finding or educating us on owner provided parts. It took 2 annuals to get to all the little things that are easily overlooked over the life of a training plane. Like, some leaks are acceptable, some pulleys don't need to be replaced today, untreated corrosion... All effect that sales price too.
I have also seen former 141 school planes that are as healthy as they were new, just ugly. I knew a guy that bought a UofIllinois orange pumpkin B19 that had like 14,000 hours. It was in great mechanical shape, but it sure did look like a university plane. My Sierra has about 3000 hours of flight school time and needed more work than I cared to admit, but accepted. It is all in the pre buy, and what you are willing to put into it. I budgeted about 10 AMU's for what I wanted to do to the Sierra when I bought it. Turns out, I was almost spot on. Ya can only tell I spent that much by looking at the log book, not the airplane.
Thanks for the info.
Just out of curiosity, how much slower is a Sierra than a 200hp Arrow?
Eric Stoltz
Line Up and Wait
I'm a big fan! I'm on my second one, a B24R. Yes, go to beechaeroclub.org and read up on them. According to my mechanic, they are about the same maintenance intensive as an Arrow. Can't really beat the price on them right now, or ever, really.
My personal problems with them are few: Tons of screws on inspections panels, and some parts availability. HOWEVER, with the tremendous support of the BAC (beechaeroclub), parts are really not hard to find at all. Plus, some of the most unobtainium parts can be obtained by owner produced means, and they are usually very affordable. Look for black duct, ugh! The rubber donuts on the gear are not hard to find, and the aftermarket supply is very much cheaper than OEM, by far. That's about the only beef I really have. The club does a great job of keeping these odd balls flying. But, it's slow, like slowaira, slow. Which, is a compromise for the hangar sized cabin, and 3 doors, and strength like a Beech. Because of that Beech airframe, climbs are something to plan when hot, high, or both. Just fly it within the limits it is designed and nbd. Edit: Maybe a bit hot in the summer because of the huge windshield and windows, and the number of them.
My personal favorites are many. The plane does about 90% of what I want it to do. My main big mission is me and the wifey, 250 lbs of camping gear: including 2 bikes, one 29'er, firewood, portable fire pit, food, water, and 45 gallons of fuel - that's MTOW. About a 950 useful load in my serial number. The only thing I wish it could do requires bigger tires and a tailwheel, so nbd. I've landed on a beach, grass and gravel runways, short rough "paved" runways.
I usually fly with 30 gal, not the 52 that's max. Way easy to fill each tank with 15, 20, or full by visual means - tabs hang in the tank. With normal 30 gal of fuel, I have a good 3 hrs of flying to empty at 8 ish gph. I flight plan 115 kts. (slowaira) Usually, I set 2500-2700 rpm and WOT, lean as suggested, whichever is smoothest for the day - 122 kts is my usual number at 2500 and 24.5 mp. Just about 75% or so. Light weights, like I normally fly, TO and landing are less than 1000', less with practice for fun. Get one with Armstrong flaps, dump the lift, and the breaks work great.
My fav attribute is that huge back door. The rear seats can be taken out in 2 minutes with the thumb screws from the back door. No need to climb on the wing to take them out. I can fit my 29'er in there with the front wheel off no problem. The two front doors are pretty cool to have. I'm 6 foot 2, 235 lbs. The wife is (ahem, ha-choo, cough cough, grumble) and fits just fine. Let's just say she has an hourglass figure with about 10 extra minutes. I can wear any headset and not bump the headband on the headliner. CG is hardly an issue. If it is just me and another front pax, I put 75 lbs in the cargo to make the balance aft-cg for easy flying.
I got one with a new engine, and that Lyc IO360 is totally happy flying at high power settings. We all know that engine is really hardy. Descents with power are fine, so we get back our slow climb that way. The yeller arc starts at 145 kts (iirc) so push it over and haul butt down.
The gear is really strong, as long as we keep in mind it is a retractable, which is a generally accepted weak spot in airframes. My old flight school never had a NLG collapse in the 5 years I was there with 3 '24R's. The ride is not smooth on the ground because of the rubber pucks, but whatever. They have a very high Vlo, Vle, so they can be put down at like 125 kts and operated at 145 (iirc). I don't operate like that, so, again, whatever. The gear is also easy to maintain and adjustments are minimal. Occasionally, the legs need to be pulled apart to lube them, but it isn't hard to do.
There are some issues that the club has been very successful in helping me keep my plane awesome. The aileron and rudder bushings can easily be owner supplied, really tightened mine up. Cost, 0. NLG bushings can be owner supplied by John Deer, or the aviation department at your local machine shop, very cheep brass sheets cut into circles. Some club members have complete airframes they are parting out for cost, and my plane has a few of these parts.
It is really fun to fly! Fiddly prop, floppy gear, fuel injection, fancy 430, 'ugejass doors. It does fly pretty solid, and not very sloppy. Takes turbulence easy, not much to bend.
PM me if you want more info, and my real cost to own. If you live near KSEA, I'll give you a ride. If you get on the Club's forum, ask for a ride and someone will jump at the chance for the excuse to go fly. BTW, the club members are really great folks. Very happy, friendly.
View attachment 69054 View attachment 69055 View attachment 69056
Groundpounder
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,951
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Display Name
Display name:
Emerson Bigguns
I saw that thread after I posted my question, part way through your video now. Thank you!
Jim_CAK
Line Up and Wait
I just watched the video you linked to. That is a very nice airplane. Enjoy it.Replace Arrow with Sierra and ya gots the same post. However, this is significant, the Sierra **is** faster than an Arrow. This speed is a vertical speed, down, with the engine off. Us Sierra owners carry a brick to toss out and follow for this reason.
Groundpounder, it depends. I have a former flight school plane that has a factory rebuilt engine and decent IFR gizmos for a flight school plane. The problems were some of the hard to reach areas, and parts that Beech no longer has. The BeechAeroClub has done a great job with finding or educating us on owner provided parts. It took 2 annuals to get to all the little things that are easily overlooked over the life of a training plane. Like, some leaks are acceptable, some pulleys don't need to be replaced today, untreated corrosion... All effect that sales price too.
I have also seen former 141 school planes that are as healthy as they were new, just ugly. I knew a guy that bought a UofIllinois orange pumpkin B19 that had like 14,000 hours. It was in great mechanical shape, but it sure did look like a university plane. My Sierra has about 3000 hours of flight school time and needed more work than I cared to admit, but accepted. It is all in the pre buy, and what you are willing to put into it. I budgeted about 10 AMU's for what I wanted to do to the Sierra when I bought it. Turns out, I was almost spot on. Ya can only tell I spent that much by looking at the log book, not the airplane.
Arrow76R
Pre-takeoff checklist
Since I live in Colorado I am almost always cruising above 10 k. At 12.5 k my '69 Arrow 200 has consistently cruised at 140 kts TAS at 8.6 gph for the 14 years I have owned it. I use it strictly to go from A to B so the 50 gal fuel capacity is a big limitation, imo. My insurance is about $920 /yr and maintenance costs have not been excessive. Cheap to fly, insure, and maintain, yet it does get me where I want to go. Just removed the total vacuum system and installed 2 Garmin G5s to work with the GNS 530W and autopilot for my mission.
andersenpj
Filing Flight Plan
I just bought a 72’ this year. Basically the same mission as you, and same experience with reasonable expense and maintenance. It is very encouraging to hear you’ve had it long term, and put money into the panel. Makes me want to go get G5’s, but all my vacuum stuff and ancient electronics work at the moment. The only thing I really dream of replacing it with is a PA34 (live in the mountains), alas the $$$k.
What autopilot do you have? My piper Autocontrol (Century?) is still working fine. Seems like only really expensive replacement AP options for an Arrow with Garmin hardware
slacktide
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 556
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan
The same thing that stops people from putting Seminole wings on an Arrow to make a Piper Tri-Motor. Time, Money, Talent, and Motivation.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
There was already a Piper tri-motor... The original Seneca prototype was a Lance that had 200hp engines added to the wings, they did not remove the 300hp from the nose. Would have been a fun bird to mess with!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
It was called PA-32-3M, a modification of the original PA-32 prototype (N9999W), with a 250 hp O-540 in the nose, and two 115 hp O-235s with fixed-pitch props on the wings. After a few test flights in 1965 the O-235s were swapped out for 150 hp O-320s. Soon Piper decided the project wasn't going anywhere (with fixed gear and fixed props it literally wasn't going anywhere) and they dropped the tri-motor idea. A couple of years later they flew the PA-34-E1 ("Twin Six") prototype with two 180 hp O-360s, but still with fixed gear. In fits and starts that morphed into the retractable, 2x200 hp PA-34-200 Seneca of 1972.There was already a Piper tri-motor... The original Seneca prototype was a Lance that had 200hp engines added to the wings, they did not remove the 300hp from the nose. Would have been a fun bird to mess with!
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Jeff, you know so dang much about Piper I swear you must have been there.
I'm sure he was too. But I can't figure out how he got away with moonlighting at Cessna AND Beech at the same time, all those years.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Sort of ... I was a CFI and sales demo pilot for a Piper Flite Center in the early 1970s, so it helped to know the products and how they stacked up against the competition.Jeff, you know so dang much about Piper I swear you must have been there.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
There was already a Piper tri-motor... The original Seneca prototype was a Lance that had 200hp engines added to the wings, they did not remove the 300hp from the nose. Would have been a fun bird to mess with!
700 hp hung on a Seneca would allow it to almost keep up with a Baron.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
I am going to put you on the spot Jeff. Of the high volume piston twins during their heyday (e.g. lets exclude the unusual ones like the Beagle) which would you choose as the best personal aircraft today, and why?
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
"High volume" and "personal" meaning the Aztec/Baron/C-310 class? And assuming one is shopping for what's available on the used market in 2018, as opposed to drooling over new factory-new airplanes in 1972?
I suspect you and I think along the same lines ...
... but I'll need some time to write out some reasons. I'm traveling most of tomorrow, will try to respond tomorrow night. 
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,999
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
That climb rate though.700 hp hung on a Seneca would allow it to almost keep up with a Baron.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Exactly.
High enough volume in their heyday that there is an ample selection of them available in the used market today. Sufficient capability to be used ranging from solo to typical family transport.
benyflyguy
En-Route
This thread just got interesting
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would fly an arrow in Colorado. The one I rent has a new engine (~350 hrs) and it sucks for climbing. The Archer climbs better. We filed IFR one night this fall and I couldn't even get to 11k' and it took about 20 mins to get to 10k' when my instructor called it. Other than climbing at Vx making 400 fpm, I do get that it is reasonable cruise speed for reasonable fuel burns, but the performance on the climb out....ick. I only took the time to get checked out in it in case I need to go on a last minute trip, since it's always available. Is this climb performance normal?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
You do know the Arrow has a constant speed prop?
Seriously, if it is not outclimbing an Archer at similar load and DA then the Arrow is probably badly out of rig. My airport is in the Rockies at 4000 ASL and the Arrow is pretty popular around here, with a fair number of turbo versions. I have owned both a Cherokee 180 and a 200 hp Arrow.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
My 180hp Arrow has a 15,000 foot service ceiling. I have flown it at a DA of 15,000 feet, climbing there with no trouble with full tanks and an instructor on board. It didn’t want to go much higher, and even looking at the trim wheel would make it descend a foot, but I would not consider it normal for any Arrow to have trouble flying above 10,000’.You do know the Arrow has a constant speed prop?
Seriously, if it is not outclimbing an Archer at similar load and DA then the Arrow is probably badly out of rig.
Morgan3820
Ejection Handle Pulled
You're doing something wrong if those are the numbers that you are seeing.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
There are too many variables involved in shopping for a 50-year-old used airplane for the concept of "best" to have much meaning. But all else being equal, if I were in the market for a twin in that class I'd probably look first for an Aztec.
I'd be looking for something reliable, relatively easy to maintain, roomy and comfortable. Versatility -- the ability to operate comfortably and safely into the shorter airfields I frequent, with ample cargo room and CG range to accommodate it -- is more important to me than a high cruising speed. Sports-car-like handling would be nice, too, but if I can only own one airplane at a time, stability and predictable (if unexciting) handling are more important.
On balance for me, these all add up to Aztec (any 'B' model or later, as long as it has dual hydraulic pumps). The Aztec has the added advantages of that thick Super Cub wing that does reasonably well with ice; and engines that say "Lycoming" on them.
I've never owned one, of course, but a good friend who has owned a non-turbo 'E' model for a number of years says he has been well-satisfied with the experience. On the other hand, I've heard tales of woe from C-310 owners about exhaust and gear problems.
Senecas are roomy, but don't have the stout feel of an Aztec. And I'd be reluctant to enter into a long-term relationship with one Continental TSIO-360, let alone two of them.
I've never flown a Beagle
, nor an Aerostar or a Shrike Commander, but I wonder how they would compare. And a Part 121 friend tells me how much he loved the Cessna T303 Crusader he flew in his 135 days. But these are probably not the "high-volume" types in the scope of your question.(Of course, now that we're empty nesters I imagine it would be really cool to cruise around the country in a Wing Derringer!)
AnthonyS1
Pre-takeoff checklist
What manifold pressure and RPM are you climbing out at? When I did my commercial stuff in the arrow the CFI's taught us to cruise climb by pulling the power to 25" and 2500 at 500agl. This drastic lowered the climb performence VS full power it seemed. I guess it helped save the flight school money on gas though.
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,631
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Purely curious - why not a 337 Skymaster if short field is a goal?There are too many variables involved in shopping for a 50-year-old used airplane for the concept of "best" to have much meaning. But all else being equal, if I were in the market for a twin in that class I'd probably look first for an Aztec.
I'd be looking for something reliable, relatively easy to maintain, roomy and comfortable. Versatility -- the ability to operate comfortably and safely into the shorter airfields I frequent, with ample cargo room and CG range to accommodate it -- is more important to me than a high cruising speed. Sports-car-like handling would be nice, too, but if I can only own one airplane at a time, stability and predictable (if unexciting) handling are more important.
On balance for me, these all add up to Aztec (any 'B' model or later, as long as it has dual hydraulic pumps). The Aztec has the added advantages of that thick Super Cub wing that does reasonably well with ice; and engines that say "Lycoming" on them.
I've never owned one, of course, but a good friend who has owned a non-turbo 'E' model for a number of years says he has been well-satisfied with the experience. On the other hand, I've heard tales of woe from C-310 owners about exhaust and gear problems.
Senecas are roomy, but don't have the stout feel of an Aztec. And I'd be reluctant to enter into a long-term relationship with one Continental TSIO-360, let alone two of them.
I've never flown a Beagle
(Of course, now that we're empty nesters I imagine it would be really cool to cruise around the country in a Wing Derringer!)
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
So, if high cruising speed were important, what would be your choice? What about cost per mile?
That would be cool! There's one based at Madison, and the pilot is even more interesting than the plane (his father was a Tuskegee Airman and his other plane is a Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm BO209, another very rare bird). Really neat planes, I wish more of them would have been produced!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Thought about that. I've always liked the concept, even in the fixed-gear C-336 iteration (which are getting pretty rare). But it's a notch down from the Aztec/Baron/C-310 class in power and cabin/cargo room. I'm a bit leery of the maintenance issues, especially with the C-337 gear mechanism.
Can't get 25", more like 22" to 23" full throttle. I pull the rpms back at 1000' agl to 2350ish.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
In my 180hp Arrow, I pull back to 25/2500 and 12gph (or more if needed for cooling) at about 500' AGL. That's what a previous owner taught me when giving my transition training in the plane. I keep it at 25" by advancing throttle until it's wide open and keep it at 2500rpm throughout the initial climb. I then reduce power for cruise, which I usually do at 65% power and 2200 or 2300 rpm. (After a recent webinar regarding operating over-square, I printed out the power setting graph for my engine and I do plan to experiment with some other settings for cruise, but I haven't got around to that yet.) There are other ways to fly the plane but this has worked for me so far.