I don’t think any of Arrows have ice protection (TKS or FIKI)? CAV TKS system is only available for Piper Six and no heated propellers on Arrows, having said that, the turbo Arrow has lot of steam to punch through to cruise level vs non-turbo Arrow but if you are not cruising VMC you will have to go down
Don’t believe the hangar talk about FL160 getting you above weather, it gets you right in the middle of it if there is any. By „over the weather“ these tales mean being over bumpy air when bimbling around at 3500ft. However it’s very much dependent on your intended trips.
The type of weather that climbs above FL160 tends to be easy to avoid laterally and visually, you don’t have to fly in any crap your aircraft or heart is not supposed to handle, you put more fuel and fly around it 
You have to be really unlucky to fly in frozen stratus going from 100ft agl ceiling to FL160 with serious icing band going from your MSA to FL160, then Cat3b visibility conditions in every airport, it happens in some winters but it’s rare and depends where one flies !
The discussion is about merits of turbo arrow vs non-turbo arrow was not about buying TBM, PC12 or Vision Jets, in the narrow turbo Arrow vs non-turbo Arrow context, or turbo Cirrus vs non-turbo Cirrus, I would say turbo gives way more options, actually more than non-turbo engine with FIKI wings…
Here’s my friend’s answer. He was based for a long while in San Jose, CA, and has nowmoved down south near San Diego.
Long story short, a turbo Arrow (and I suspect a turbo airplane in general) only makes sense at high density altitudes (whether induced by temperature or not). For someone who doesn’t fly it regularly in the high desert, over the mountains, or in the low levels (the Arrow IV has a max approved altitude of FL200), the turbo is a pointless expense. Note also that while the turbo works well in scorching hot weather, the Arrow’s cockpit design (1 door, no openable windows) does NOT.
The Arrow is not a fast cross country airplane. It is slower than anything else except basic fixed-gear trainers. It is slightly better than a 177RG or a Tiger, possibly comparable with a 182 fixed gear (depending on the year I guess) and measurably worse than a 182RG. Whether the speed differential matters depends obviously on the trip. For the kind of stuff I fly it doesn’t matter that much. If you were to do a 4-5 hours flight each weekend it would matter much more.
I’m not 100% sure which engine the -III has. The -IV has a TSIO-360-FB (or some other -F subvariant). It is by far the crappiest engine Continental ever put out, or at least the crappiest of theirs I’ve ever flown. Max MP is 41’’ (bit less with an intercooler), cruise is 31’’ – 33’’. The intercooler reduces it to about 29 but you’re still way above sensible sustained figures. You only get 200 hp (slightly more at altitude, maybe). TBO is around 1400, the turbo typically doesn’t make it even halfway through. All of the 2-3 TSIO-360-FB I’ve flown required top overhauls well short of TBO. I’ve never seen one that doesn’t leak oil and doesn’t have a blow-by problem to some degree. Oh, and an engine monitor with TIT is an absolute necessity.
The intercooler helps a bit, but in my understanding it mostly does so by increasing detonation margins. To someone running the engine ROP that shouldn’t matter much. In my airplane I’ve got one and it mainly allows me to reduce MP by 1-2’’ and still get the same performance on most days. The Merlin wastegate controller should do more to help, in theory, and possibly to extend the lifespan of the turbo by not forcing it to be fully spooled up all the time; I have no experience with one. The engine is perfectly manageable with a fixed wastegate, there are some minor bootstrapping problems at altitude and obviously it needs some attention whenever adding power but that’s par for course.
I always run the engine ROP. LOP is a hassle and makes no sense when you’re in the air 2-4 hours a month. I usually set around 65-70% power (29’’ / 2400 RPM) which gives me about 135 KIAS at middle altitudes (6-8k MSL) at a somewhat consistent 12 GPH. Those figures are for a 30 C intercooler temperature drop. Without intercooler you need to bump up the MP to 31’’ or so. The rule of thumb is about 1 free MP for each 15 C of intercooling. I usually don’t reduce MP below 29’’ even when the intercooler is working really well (which usually only happens at altitude); in that case I just enjoy a bit of extra performance (maybe 5 knots or so).
A climb of 1000 fpm to altitude is possible but not healthy. My Arrow will do it — at full power, when reasonably light — but it’s not healthy for the engine and I would expect red hot CHTs midway through (and no cowling flaps to help). At climb power settings (31’’, or 33’’ without intercooler, 2450 RPM, full rich, ~105 KIAS) I usually get about 500 fpm sustained which is just fine for most practical purposes. The Arrow is NOT a STOL or a mountain flying airplane, and the T-tail ones even less so. That being said, the power is there and continuously available (vs. time and altitude) if it’s needed.
I haven’t been in a NA Arrow long enough to compare. I’ve done 1 cross country in a NA 180HP version. Those 20 HP missing were noticed, however it was a hershey bar wing and I don’t know how performance was affected by the wing vs. the engine. As per the laws of physics and according to personal experience, spare power tends to help mostly with climb rates and does relatively little to cruise airspeed (maye in the 5-10% range?).
All in all the reason why I got an Arrow was that their market somewhat crashed when the FAA came out with the TAA rule for CPL time. I got it with the turbo because of Tahoe and the high deserts in the west, plus it didn’t cost anything extra. Even prices for non-school ones (or at least low-time airframes) were down quite a bit back in 2017. These days, with the spar AD and the way the SEL piston market is going in the US, I don’t know if any deals are good enough. I would look primarily at 177RG (spar problems there too, though, and every one of them has been geared up at least twice by now…), fixed gear 182, the Tiger, nice 4-seat experimentals (e.g. Sling 4 or RV-10), or maybe Mooneys, in case I didn’t have to fit my family in the back. I don’t know if any of those are options in Europe.
Darkfixer wrote:
Turbo Arrows looks to be a qualified contender at a resonable price, but are I’ve read horror stories about Turbo engines.
There is some truth in this, particularly where the Continental TSIO-360 is concerned. This engine also powers a lot of other airplanes such as the Seneca II, the Mooney 231 and the Turbo Dakota, amongst many.
The original Turbo Arrow III had the TSIO-360-F variant, which had a TBO of a measly 1400 hours. The Arrow IV got a new version of the same engine, the TSIO-360-FB, with an improved TBO of 1800 hours thanks to a stronger crankshaft. Many III’s today feature this engine too.
At approximately the same time Mooney brought on it’s turbocharged 231, with the TSIO-360-GB engine. It was not long until that one got upgraded to the -LB and finally the -MB variant.
The Seneca II got a very similar engine to the Turbo Arrow called the TSIO-360-E which later got replaced with the EB, and yes, you guess right, the latter featured an improved crankshaft.
In short, the whole TSIO-360 family is known for the fact that Continental did not do too well with the initial release and upgraded the crankshaft ( adding a “B” to the original engine which would go along with a TBO increase) and finally more and different versions of the engine which gradually improved it’s handling and failure characteristics.
Failures of the original and early -B engines were sufficiently often so that the NTSB actually demanded a safety review but the FAA declined. In those days, the TSIO-360 had a uncomfortably high amount of engine failures to it’s book, a full 54 engine failures in the first 5 years, that figure slowly decreased but never really disappeared. The later variants, such as the -MB and those equipped with intercoolers and automatic wastegates, greately improved those ghastly figures, but still, the turbo is a force to be reckoned with, not only maintenance ($$$$$) wise but also in terms of safety, particularly if you are not one who gets a kick out of fiddly engine parameter settings.
The only time I got to work with the TSIO-360-(EB) was on the Seneca II. I vividly recall the fact that especcially on take off, setting power was a fiddly and often frustrating exercise to keep those “overboost” lamps, which the Turbo Arrow also has, from lighting up. Setting power there usually meant to first set 30" and then gradually increase it to the MTOP while already rolling down the runway and your attention should be elsewhere. I recall several cases of the “Take off power set” call being immediately followed by the “V1/Rotate” call out and during training it was not uncommon that the FI (who owned the airplane) would do the final adjustment.
In flight, the Turbo obviously are a great thing to have, particularly coming from the normally-aspirated Seneca I, the experience not being too different as between a NA Arrow III to a Turbo III. Still, engine management is a sight more work than with a NA engine or with a turbo which has goodies like an automatic wastegate, which some of the later TSIO-360 do have. You have to pre-plan much more in descent and it is absolutely vital to run the engines idle for at least 5 mins before shut down.
Add to that the fact that most of those engines will need a new set of cylinders somewhere mid TBO and turbo overhauls e.t.c. Some engine folks in the US claim that the $ factor is about 1.6 between a turbo or a non-turbo engine in terms of maintenance cost.
In other words: If you consider buying a plane with a Continental TSIO-360, you need to be very attentive to what you actually buy. Original (“non B”) engines are a big no, so are early “GB” engines on M20K’s. Automatic wastegates are a big yes on the wishlist, so are intercoolers.
Darkfixer wrote:
Thinking of buying an Turbo for a good cross country plane, but I also want more speed below 8000ft…
Speed is not something I think about when looking back at my (limited) Arrow time. I did evaluate an Arrow II (NA) once and what it got out of that Lycoming IO360 200 hp injected engine was 135 KTAS in most cases, 140 if you push it high up. I understand that the Turbo Arrow can do some 160 kts high up, so yea, between the non-turbo and the turbo variant there is a 20 kts gap. However, there are other airplanes which do that without a turbo: A SR20 will cruise at around 150 kts on it’s Continental IO360 and the Mooney 201 is a true 160 kt airplane with the same horsepower but a Lycoming IO360 engine.
So the whole thing comes down to the usual: Mission.
Personally, I like the Arrow and I would not say no to e.g. a nicely equipped and payload rich Arrow III as a family airplane. It has the typical PA28 cabin, PA28 flying characteristics and even the “fool proof” automatic landing gear in those models where it has not been deactivated. A III over a II anytime, because the III features 77 USG fuel tanks over 50 USG in the II, that is 2 hours of fuel more. A III is a pretty decent traveller and can do up to 900 NM at 140 kts. If you absolutely want a Turbo Arrow, I’d go for an Arrow III with the -FB engines and get one which has both the automatic wastegate and intercooler. The III because it has the conventional tail, which many owners say is better for both take off and landing performance and also handles better. But in the end, the engine is what might make your choice, so if it’s a III with an old engine and a IV with a new one, I hear those T-Tails make good shelters in the rain….
Also, there is a variant of the Dakota with the same engine. Dakotas are maybe the most underestimated Pipers around. They do much of what the Arrow does without the hassle of a retractable gear.
If it is speed you are after, you can’t ignore the M20J, or if you absolutely need a turbo, the M20K (with at least the LB engine) or the 252 (with the MB) or Encore (with the SB). The normally aspirated “J” will deliver 160 kts up to about 13000 ft and 150 up to it’s service ceiling of 18000 ft. The K’s will deliver beyond 180 kts up high and 160-170 down low. In terms of range they are usually slightly better but take less time to get there. In terms of payload, a recent J (increased MTOW) is usually not far behind from an Arrow III And do reserve the judgement about cabin width until you have sat in one.
If you need a combination of the two, the best compromise I can think of is the TB20 or the TB21.
For me, who live near mountains and where crossing of the same is the one big challenge, yes, I would love a turbo for IFR, but I do not live in the illusion that it would massively up my dispatch rate unless it comes with de-icing. To be as safe as you can be in a mountain environment I’d go for a Seneca II or III. Yes, they also have the same expensive engines, but two of them and they are fully de-iced normally.
For flying in the 8000-14000 ft range regularly, I would go normally aspirated any time (in fact I do).
Question to the wider audience – in these market conditions is there any reason to go for Arrow instead of, say, TB-20 or older Mooney?
Arrow take on lot of grass vs M20 or TB20
Ibra wrote:
Arrow take on lot of grass vs M20 or TB20
I would not know how good the M20J is on grass, the C model has no problem with grass either. Looks like I will be based on grass in a moment.
The Arrow can take pretty rough strips, that is true. I would have thought the TB20 should be able to as well as it is a French airplane.
The Arrows can go to Skylanes places, if you are keen on cleaning 
On Mooneys, yes I have flown M20C and M20F, they can take on grass way more than M20J but I am inclined to think slightly less than Bonanzas and Arrows, I have not flown TB20 on grass but I doubt it work on that mission?
The 4 cylinders Mooneys can go to grass (6 cylinders ones are not good on grass, not at all if you ask me), personally, I have no issue operating M20J on grass, although few times I had bounces and go arounds (literally no idea why it bounced? even from perfect approach), I usually take it very light and approach at 65kias with burst power before touchdown, it only needs 400m, if the surface is bumpy bit of sideslip drag will eat any tendency to bounce, the same during early takeoff roll with soft technique but that eats some ground roll, the taxi is the main challenging aspect and one needs to know what they are doing. In a nutshell, the M20J works as platform for occasional use on grass while being light but it’s not the right aircraft for MTOW flying in a bumpy grass homebase that will surely mess up it’s wet wing tanks: need reseal, the gear donuts: need change and likely new propeller & engine from time to time
I operated one in UK at Stapleford and flown it in few UK grass strips but usually 1pob and very light on fuel
It gets under 150m ground roll even in Damyns Hall rwy 21 with pylons and displaced threshold
I used to fly a friend one in Dreux, you have to pick the right days for it and to taxi carefully
Arrow 1 and 2 with Hershey bar wing tend to be lighter, and the slab wing is easier to spot land and will take off in quite a short distance, they also have the johnson bar flaps.
In the UK I would suggest it is easier to get maintenance support for the Arrow.
The early Arrow if low time and not exposed to CPL training, tends to retain loyal owners. While nice aircraft have never figured out why upgrade to an Arrow which is practically a 133 KTAS aircraft, while a well rigged fixed gear, fixed prop Archer will only be a few knots slower.
One thing I would say about the PA28R generally, and controversial, is that being the cheapest retractable in existence, it attracts a lot of people who don’t look after them.
This is an extreme example but I have seen many not much better.
And the perception that anybody who can pick up a spanner can fix a “PA28” means that a lot of PA28Rs also get done by “spanner monkeys”. Flying schools in particular are adept in locating compliant spanner monkeys.
So a very good prebuy is needed.
