Turbocharged or Naturally Aspirates Piper Arrow?

[Kestrel452]

Me and my father are getting into flying, so he wants to buy a Piper Arrow III. We are torn between a the Turbo Arrow and regular Arrow. The Turbo Arrow will give you some extra speed and allow a higher operational ceiling. However, many say that the TSIO-360 is maintainance nightmare and are unreliable. A naturally aspirated Arrow is a reliable plane (which obvisously has its benefits).

Can anyone bunk/debunk these rants about the turbocharged engine? Can these problems be substantially mitigated with some aftermarket mods? Can the regular Arrow 3's engine be upgraded to achieve the same speed gains obtained with the turbo version?

Thanks.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

Do you have other needs for the turbo such as mountains to cross or a chronic desire to fly high?

 

[Kestrel452]

Do you have other needs for the turbo such as mountains to cross or a chronic desire to fly high?

It's not like we live in the mountains, but it would be nice to have the ability to fly where a non turbocharged plane could not. The biggest benefit we see for the extra altitude would be the ability to get above weather. And we also like the fact that the turbo is a bit faster.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

It's not like we live in the mountains, but it would be nice to have the ability to fly where a non turbocharged plane could not. The biggest benefit we see for the extra altitude would be the ability to get above weather. And we also like the fact that the turbo is a bit faster.

To get that speed, your probably going to have to be up high, sucking on O2. So, now you've got to have that whole O2 system up and running. Are you willing to be sucking on either a cannula or a mask for 2 or more hours?

 

[Kestrel452]

To get that speed, your probably going to have to be up high, sucking on O2. So, now you've got to have that whole O2 system up and running. Are you willing to be sucking on either a cannula or a mask for 2 or more hours?

Are you saying that the turbo will only go faster if you are at a high altitude?

 

[jrh]

It's not like we live in the mountains, but it would be nice to have the ability to fly where a non turbocharged plane could not. The biggest benefit we see for the extra altitude would be the ability to get above weather. And we also like the fact that the turbo is a bit faster.

Even with a turbo, you're not really going to get "above" weather. If anything, you're just going to put yourself deeper in to the icing and turbulence up in the tops of building clouds.

The main reasons I see for getting a turbo are for mountain flying and gaining speed on long (300+ nm) cross countries when you can cruise up high (assuming you don't mind using O2).

As for maintenance, as long as you fly it carefully it shouldn't be anything exceptionally expensive. A lot of the horror stories you hear come from guys who don't pay any attention to manifold pressures, turbine inlet temps, cylinder head temps, etc. and then complain when their engine doesn't reach TBO.


As an aside, have you and your dad thought seriously about what your mission profile is? What sort of distances, time frames, and payloads do you want to carry? The whole Piper Arrow line fits a relatively narrow profile. You might find yourself happier with a nice C-182 or something for day to day operations. A lot of people get hung up on speeds (gaining 10 or 15 knots in an Arrow versus 182) when the reality is they're only talking about saving 20 minutes on their average flight, while trading off a lot in payload, range, maintenance costs, etc.

 

[jrh]

Are you saying that the turbo will only go faster if you are at a high altitude?

Yes, the Arrow is a turbo-normalized design. That means it will keep full power at higher altitudes with thinner air (meaning higher true airspeeds) but down low to the ground, the turbo doesn't really make any difference. You can't boost to more than 30" manifold pressure I believe.

 

[mshunter]

Even with a turbo, you're not really going to get "above" weather. If anything, you're just going to put yourself deeper in to the icing and turbulence up in the tops of building clouds.

The main reasons I see for getting a turbo are for mountain flying and gaining speed on long (300+ nm) cross countries when you can cruise up high (assuming you don't mind using O2).

As for maintenance, as long as you fly it carefully it shouldn't be anything exceptionally expensive. A lot of the horror stories you hear come from guys who don't pay any attention to manifold pressures, turbine inlet temps, cylinder head temps, etc. and then complain when their engine doesn't reach TBO.


As an aside, have you and your dad thought seriously about what your mission profile is? What sort of distances, time frames, and payloads do you want to carry? The whole Piper Arrow line fits a relatively narrow profile. You might find yourself happier with a nice C-182 or something for day to day operations. A lot of people get hung up on speeds (gaining 10 or 15 knots in an Arrow versus 182) when the reality is they're only talking about saving 20 minutes on their average flight, while trading off a lot in payload, range, maintenance costs, etc.

Listen to this guy. He is 100% right. A turbo anything is only necessary when mission dictate. If you are a flat lander (or even relatively flat, like So-Cal), then ditch the turbo option. It's not a maint. prone desgine, but it definatly is one more thing to break. And IIRC, most Piper/Cessna turbo desgines eliminate the heater.

 

[AviatorGator]

Guess I'm the first one to vote for the regular arrow. You didn't give me the option but I would have rather selected none of the above. The Arrow is a decent complex trainer but surely you can find a different aircraft that is a better "cruiser" (speed, payload, etc...) that has the same mx and fuel costs as an arrow.

Also, if you're not in hot/high country, you don't need a turbo anything.

Can anyone tell me what the ceiling is on a turbo arrow?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

You really need an "Other" option in the poll. If you truely want something with 4 seats, retracts and speed, your going to have to go either Commander 112/114 or Mooney. Just a really quick glance of Controller puts a turbo Arrow around say $80 large. For that same $80 large, you can either get into something along the lines of a M20 (E/G vintage) that is decently equipped, or a Commander 112 that isn't very well equipped. Perhaps you could also look at the Piper Commanche series.

Or, has been said, if you don't need the retracts, its tough to beat something like a 182 or a Cherokee 235.

 

[KLB]

I'd probably go with the something like a 182 over the arrow. I have plenty time from when i used to instruct in the arrow and I can say that its truly a pig! I wouldn't have one for other than training purposes.

To answer you question, I'd go with the turbo arrow due to the higher speed at higher altitudes.

 

[jdlilfan]

+1 with what everyone else is saying.

I have about 200+ hrs in Arrow's. They aren't "that" fast, not much useful load, and not that great of performance in warmer weather. Also at least in the training atmosphere, they will not take much abuse. My local flight school's two are always in maintenance with some issue. Gear issues, alternators and electrical gremlins, starters going out, and various other things always breaking. I am sure a privately owned Arrow would probably not have that much trouble, but flying one almost everyday for at least 4 or more hours a day (in 1-1.5hr lessons) can really take a toll on that plane.

Go with a 182. Same speed or faster IMO, more useful load, and fixed gear (cheaper insurance and one less thing to break).

 

[Kestrel452]

Well thanks for the input. I didn't want to include an "other" option because I really only wanted to know whether you guys preferred the Arrow or Turbo Arrow. What planes should we look at that are in the same price range as the Arrow?

 

[jrh]

What planes should we look at that are in the same price range as the Arrow?

Could you describe what you want to use the plane for?

Include:

Distance of average trip
Number of people on average trip
How important time is to you (how fast do you really need the plane to cruise)
Experience levels/backgrounds of the pilots

Those are the top questions that pop in to my mind when thinking of an owner's first plane.

Buying a used aircraft is not too unlike buying a used car. You don't want to buy the first car that looks good. You need to decide what you're going to do with the car first in order to narrow down your options...decide if it's going to be a daily driver or weekend cruiser, if you want to drive with your whole family or not, if you want a pickup, minivan, sports car, sedan, etc. Then you can start looking at individual models to find the perfect fit.

 

[upup89]

I LOVE turbos but more often than not the extra cost doesn't justify the operation. The last thing you want to do is buy a turbocharged airplane and not properly know how to treat them not to mention I believe turbos TBO the engine faster.

I'd get the most beefed up engine you can and not take on the extra risk with a turbo. That is unless you are willing to pay the extra price.

 

[DPApilot]

Arrow III's useful load sucks. It honestly isn't that fast either. I'm gonna be a +1 for another ac.
I like the arrow, and it flies nice, but not a good personal airplane IMHO.

 

[Joe Gremlin]

You really need an "Other" option in the poll. If you truely want something with 4 seats, retracts and speed, your going to have to go either Commander 112/114 or Mooney.

Huh? The average N/A Arrow is a 135kt 3-people/full tanks airplane. The average older Mooney is 145kt 3-people/full tanks airplane with a bit less room than the Arrow. The average 112 is 125kt 2-1/2 people/full tanks airplane with tons of room and a very little useful load available to actually do anything with all the space. Most 114's will be out of the Arrow price range.

The Comanches will be worth looking into so long as you're not foolish enough to think that just because it has six seats, you can actually put six people in it. You can get them in same price range as an Arrow. If you get 250hp or bigger, it'll haul more than an Arrow and go faster but your fuel bill will be higher. And it will likely be older than an Arrow as well.

And of course no thread on this subject would be complete unless someone said just buy a Bonanza, it's what you'll end up with anyway. You can get plenty of older Bo's for Arrow prices and they'll be faster at power settings which yield Arrow fuel burns or a whole lot faster at normal cruise power settings.

 

[tonyw]

Why introduce unnecessary complexity into an aircraft that's already going to cost you mucho bucks to own and operate?

It's one thing if you need a turbo. It's another thing when you don't.

 

[CK]

Yes, the Arrow is a turbo-normalized design. That means it will keep full power at higher altitudes with thinner air (meaning higher true airspeeds) but down low to the ground, the turbo doesn't really make any difference. You can't boost to more than 30" manifold pressure I believe.

It has been a long time since I have flown a Turbo Arrow, but I believe it has the same engine has a Seneca II and has an MP redline of 42". I always really liked the Turbo Arrow, it is fast (165-170kts) off of a relatively low fuel burn. I think the performance difference between the regular Arrow and the Turbo Arrow are much difference. The Turbo Arrow will hold 1000fpm up to 10,000 where you will see a TAS around what I mentioned above. I have always considered it to be a very undervalued airplane and I think it would be a great personal airplane. I do think that the normally aspirated Arrow is a dog and would perfer the other airplanes mentioned over it.

The reason the airplane got a bad rep was because it is very easy to overboost the engine. The one I flew was sold to a gentleman in TX who didn't know you couldn't just push the throttle all the way foward to the stop. He ruined the engine very quickly. The little engines seem to handel being turbochared much better than their big brothers.

Arrow III's useful load sucks.

The useful load on the Turbo Arrow with full fuel is around 700 pounds which is pretty good in my opinion.

Alex.

 

[jrh]

It has been a long time since I have flown a Turbo Arrow, but I believe it has the same engine has a Seneca II and has an MP redline of 42".

Ooops, my bad, you're right. I just looked up the specs. It has a TSIO-360F engine rated to 41.0" MP. It's been four years since I flew one so my mind is a bit fuzzy.

I wouldn't say they're a bad personal aircraft necessarily. I'd just make sure the owner's mission profile matches the aircraft. I've seen a lot of owners look at nothing but top speed and end up with a plane they don't really like.