greg_mp wrote:
I have have rented an arrow 4 turbo for some time (~30hr), and can definitely say it’s not a 150+ TAS plane. With 3 aboard and close to full load, we were achieving ~140ktas at FL80 on our trips in italy, and most of time headwind, so 110 to 130 gs.
Actually, looking at the figures from the POH, this pretty much are book figures.
@FL080 at max gross weight, book speeds are 146 KTAS @75%, 138 KTAS @65% and aprroximately 130 KTAS @ 55%
In order to do “Turbo Speeds” you need to climb much higher. To achive 150 KTAS, you need 10’000 ft @75%, 14000 ft @ 65% and 17000 ft @ 55%
Max Speeds are in the region of 170 KTAS achieved at around 18000 ft in normal cruise regimes.
They do have a table for balls to the walls, but I doubt somehow that it is representative. It indicates some 170 kts at 10’000 ft with 41’ MP and 2575 RPM and full rich mixture, which means a ludicrous fuel flow and probably not a long engine life.
The maximum range of the Arrow IV is achieved at 55% at 17000 ft. At that altitude and 55%, TAS is indicated as 150 KTAS.
Book fuel flow of the Turbo Arrow IV as by the POH:
55% power 9.2 GPH
65% Power l0.8 GPH
75% Power 12.0 GPH
That is pretty much what the crux is with Turbo planes. They are NOT planes for anywhere below 14-15000 ft realistically. If you wanna fly there, fly NA. Turbos get really interesting above FL140-150. If you are not prepared to fly with masks, don’t bother.
I am not a fan of big screens
I am not either, because it ties you to your “friendly Garmin dealer” for more or less everything. Most owners are happy with that, but then few people do long trips to places without a friendly (or any) Garmin dealer…
But as the years go by it is harder and harder to avoid “glass”. You need to have fairly specific avionics if you want modern stuff and still have servicing / swap-out flexibility.
A general issue with the PA28R is that is is the cheapest retractable and thus attracts a disproportionate % of people who are right on the limit cash-wise, and we see this in the condition of many for sale. Various past threads…
Peter wrote:
But as the years go by it is harder and harder to avoid “glass”. You need to have fairly specific avionics if you want modern stuff and still have servicing / swap-out flexibility.
You don’t need to “avoid glass” necessarily. Products like the Aspen Max series or the G5 and it’s successors work well enough and they don’t ground you necessarily if they break and can be replaced in minutes if necessary.
Peter wrote:
A general issue with the PA28R is that is is the cheapest retractable and thus attracts a disproportionate % of people who are right on the limit cash-wise, and we see this in the condition of many for sale.
The Arrow is one of the cheapest such rides. I would say it is pretty similar in price to the M20 series as well, given the age and availability. It is the 180-220 HP range of retracables, in which you can find also the Beech Sierra (which is even slower than the Arrow!) or even older Bonnies. IMHO, the primary point with any airplane you wish to buy is to look at what you have in front of you, do a PPI with someone who knows the airplane and then make an educated decision.
Personally, I like the Arrow III best of the whole range. Today, with a kid and baggage hungry family, I would seriously consider an Arrow III (NA) as a family wagon due to range and useful load. So it is a kind of in between the 2+ seaters vs the bigger TB20, SR22, Cessna 182/210 and most Bonanzas, as well as the PA32 which are the next higher class.
You can get maintenance starved airplanes in any class of plane however.
can be replaced in minutes if necessary.
With Aspen, that’s quite useful 
Peter wrote:
With Aspen, that’s quite useful
No need for a smiley, Peter. That is serious.
I’ve only now come to read this interesting thread…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
…if you fly distances with family…
The eptitome of that may well be the Ovation which has a range most people never need at 180 kts or more.
…but then for a real epitome you’d also want to carry that family and their luggage, would you not?
The Ovation is many things but not a family plane. All long body Mooneys are notoriously short on payload. They are the best in terms of range and speed, no doubt about it, but for 1 up to 2 people and their luggage, period. It’s like using a Ferrari as a family van, where you really need an SUV.
If you fly distances with family, consisting of 2 adults and 2 kids and airline like baggage weights, you realistically need a 6 seater like a Cessna 210 or a Saratoga/Lance. Also the Arrows and PA28-180 sort of planes have astonishing payload. The only 4 seater I know with that kind of payload may be the Cessna 182, but that is a very expensive airplane to buy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Also the Arrows and PA28-180 sort of planes have astonishing payload
Well not really. I remember struggling preparing a flight in PA28-180 with four adults 2 hours. Calculated each and any kilogram. It was MTOW and the thing climbed so badly.
The “family Mooney” is the Piper Comanche
The 4-adult PA-28 is the Dakota, with luggage it’s the PA-32.
I have never been a fan of these small 6 seaters for 4-person + baggage missions. It implies that pax 3 and 4 are sitting the club seating area, with piles of baggage chucked onto seats 5 and 6 (most nose baggage compartments are small and can’t carry much weight). I mean, how awful is this? I also really hate the looks of the PA-32.
Either way you turn it, in SEPs, you can’t have four persons and one big piece of luggage each. Everybody can take one medium-size softshell type bag and they do more or less fit into the baggage compartment of any PA28. Such luggage is usually ok for up to a week of travel (for males at least).
Re the 235/236: not all of them are Dakotas. You must divide these ones into three groups actually.
1) The original -235 Cherokee (1963-1972): these are great load haulers (ca. 550kgs). Big downside: the cabin is short and the legroom for the rear pax is poor. Not really a nice four person aircraft.
2) The -235 Cherokee Chargers/Pathfinders (1973-1978): these are possibly the best of them all. 5-inch cabin strech makes it ok for four persons. 100 pounds more MTOW. Empty weight up by approx. 50 pounds, another 50 pounds more useful load (ca. 575kg). Rare birds.
3) the -236 Dakota. The heaviest of them all, so slightly less useful load than 2). The other big downside over 1) and 2) is that these can’t take mogas, which makes the fuel bill even more painful. Plus they are obviously expensive to buy .Other than that, these are of course a bit more modern than the other two.
This is the -235, with the short fuselage, that I now fly occasionally.
