Questions about PA28 Turbo Arrow III

There are some things written here where I would add some information.

Snoopy wrote:

Cylinders are „consumables“ on all Turbo planes, it seems.

Not if you stick to the operation manual of plane and engine. Plus watching the temperatures.

Raven wrote:

The best power setting regarding to engine longevity is 55%

I think this quote is quite true for any aircooled aircraft piston engine. I drive my Comanche typically at around 55% power, it’s a sweet spot where it can still be flown LOP, I get around 150KTAS on less than 9GPH and the engine runs real smooth, still warm enough, and I never had a spark plug that looked weird. I climb on 75% power or less, and only use more power during climb if it’s necessary, e.g. for ice avoidance.

Raven wrote:

But 50h per year?
You will feel no difference between 120 or 180 knots. ;)

Doesn’t this depend on the mission? Every now and then I fly over 800nm with my family – nonstop, if possible. If there’s wind against us you sure know whether you still want to go. So albeit my overall hours per year are not too numerous, I wouldn’t do the trips I do in a plane that was significantly slower, because you would have to do it in more than a day.

Now my two cents on a Turbo Arrow. I, for myself, would not buy any Turbo Arrow. You get all the worst of maintenance, retractable gear, turbo, variable pitch prop, plus an old airframe, and the benefit is just not much. In turn, my Comanche is capable of 200+ knots (did 180 in FL100, but to do the 200+ in FL200+ it’s abusing the engine), or 9+ hours on 150KTAS, it has unmatched sound proofing (we fly without headsets, especially the kids..), it comes with 6 seats and/or massive payload. These are reasons for a plane that has no competitor. It’s the “cheapest” plane to run if you compare it with other planes in its league. I wanted a Turbo as a safety matter, mainly ice avoidance, and because it’s cool But I’m doing the maintenance myself. If I’d have to pay a maintenance bill I wouldn’t carry around a Turbo.

I would either aim higher (at least 20 knots faster) or lower (with ~10 to 15 knots less there are plenty airframes w/o RG) than what a Turbo Arrow provides for.

Not if you stick to the operation manual of plane and engine. Plus watching the temperatures.

That’s a contradiction. Sticking to the POH or to temperatures?

E.g. the very well cooled SR22T 30.5inHg MAP, LOP. You may fly at a CHT of 420F / TIT 1750F.

I bet for one that reaches TBO there are 5 that do not. And if following the POH, 1 in 10 will maybe make it.

And who needs a plane to fly at 55% power? Buy an Archer instead :) and you’ll be faster.

Snoopy wrote:

And who needs a plane to fly at 55% power? Buy an Archer instead :) and you’ll be faster

Well, as always, a number given in percent is a relative number. 55% of 260 hp that my Comanche produces are 143 hp. 143 hp in an Archer (assumed 180 hp max. power) are 79.4 % power. Drive an Archer at 80% power and we’ll see what the result will be. Anyhow, do so on less than 9 GAL/hour! Impossible….and….show me an Archer that does 150 KTAS for 1400 NAM without having to land and I’ll buy that instead!

You will feel no difference between 120 or 180 knots. ;)
Except – with 120kts you will have a bit more fun :)

Sorry but this is sour grapes if I have ever seen it.

I used to fly a 90 kts airplane, then a 150 kts plane before my first hiatus from flying. Coming back I first looked at another 90 kts one and clearly said, no, sorry but no.

Particularly if you fly distances with family, and if it is those two flights a year to Cannes and back, flying in a slow plane will have family do it once and then no, thanks, but no. Speed makes all the difference there togther with good range. And quite logically, the faster the airplane is, for the same endurance, you cover lots and lots more miles.

Basically there are two “speed factors” which make airplanes good and comfortable travellers: TAS and Endurance. The higher both are the more the airplane is capable of. The eptitome of that may well be the Ovation which has a range most people never need at 180 kts or more.

Personally I find 150 kts and more than 700 NM range the criterium which I would like to see. The Turbo Arrow can do that, albeit with the said turbo,so can th TB20 and all Mooneys past the 201. There are several more but that is the range of planes which kind of correspond to the OP’s range of airplanes.

The comparison is valid relative to a Turbo Arrow. Throttling back to 55% to keep temps in check doesn’t make sense when the remaining cruise speed is <140kts TAS.

An Archer isn’t even going to produce 80% up high. At FL100 with WOT it’s less than 70%, doing ~130TAS @ ~8,7 Gph.

The efficiency your Commie gains over that is largely due to the gear. Cost/NM the Archer should win by a margin.

I’ll do 9 hours on one butt cheek easily, but (no pun) in a 787, not a SEP ;)

Anyway, Commie is great. And you deserve some owner Kool Aid.

@Snoopy it is gear and laminar wing. If only RG you’re somewhere in between an Arrow and a Saratoga.

But that’s endless. Again here, question is: what is the mission profile.

I could fly any ultralight, but my family won’t.

Is there a mission that fits a Turbo Arrow?

Do so. I recognise the Arrow as a good all-rounder. Excellent IFR platform (if you can cope without de-ice) and also good for (relatively) short grass strips.