WilliamF wrote:
I think the T-Tail is quite nice to fly in the air. I know it does 150kts true at F100, at around 12-13 USG.
I flew the PA28RT-201T quite a bit in the US and loved it. Compared to the PA28R-201 it was a lot more sensitive in the pitch plane and you had to fly it with just two fingers. I flew it all the way up to FL200 over the Rockies and it climbed impeccably.
You will need to watch your MP as a hawk, and you’ll need a good engine monitor. The rear two cylinders in particular tend to get very hot and the Continental TSIO360 has the reputation for eating cylinders.
From my contacts with many pilots over the years, there seems to be a big correlation between the PA28R and substandard maintenance. My guess is that this is because it is probably the lowest cost certified retractable so the owners were not expecting to be spending much on it afterwards. Obviously this does not necessarily apply to a particular specimen but it may mean that an extra good prebuy is worth doing. And I would make the same comment about say a 1983 TB20 going for €39k… If you want a cheap plane, get a simple plane.
WilliamF wrote:
Regarding the PA28RT201T I had a flight in one this week off a 570m grass strip. 2 up and light on fuel. It was gone in half the runway, and it has an engine on TBO. It can land in the same distance. I took a video of both. I think the T-Tail is quite nice to fly in the air. I know it does 150kts true at F100, at around 12-13 USG.
Years ago I had an MS880b based on a 400 yards grass strip. One guy used to visit thta strip every week in an Turbo Arrow 4.
I think the T-Tail is quite nice to fly in the air. I know it does 150kts true at F100, at around 12-13 USG.
Well, cruise economy isn’t strong point of the Arrow and Turbo Arrow though. An SR20 will do 150 knots at FL100 and burn only 11 gallons. And that’s in a much more spacious cabin and with the gear down! If you want to have the gear up and be squeezed in, then an M20J will do that on 10 gallons.
Years ago I had an MS880b based on a 400 yards grass strip. One guy used to visit thta strip every week in an Turbo Arrow 4.
400 yeards (365 meters) I can hardly believe. The problem with the Turbo Arrow IV on soft fields is that, at least until reaching 45 knots or so, the nosewheel will plough through the ground and you have no chance to lift it due to the elevator being ineffective (plus the aircraft in noseheavy). That creates a lot of drag.
Otherwise, I like the Turbo Arrow too.
Thx again…
I think my flying profile is traditionally 500nm at fl150-200. Most of the time that keeps convective Wx down below and speed and comfort up. Since I trave alone or with 1 pax max a small cabin is not an issue.
I went through controller.com and there are plenty of lovely m20k and turbo arrows. I think for my taste the turbo m20 will be the choice.
I like some kind of complexity with engine management and system awareness a lot anyway. I like the look of mooneys and I don’t mind flying far to find a good mechanic
Anyway…now starts the search
boscomantico wrote:
Well, cruise economy isn’t strong point of the Arrow and Turbo Arrow though. An SR20 will do 150 knots at FL100 and burn only 11 gallons.
According to the PA28RT-201T POH, to do 150 KTAS at FL100 the Turbo Arrow needs 75% power which it obtains at a FF of 12 GPH ROP. If capable of LOP, it should achieve 75% BHP at 11,1 GPH
According to the SR20 POH it achieves 150 KTAS at FL100 at 66% BHP and 10,7 GPH. That’s pretty impressive given that both planes have 200 HP engines! At LOP it should achieve 66% BHP at a FF of 8,9 GPH
I think comparing the fuel flow of a NA engine to that of a turbocharged engine is somewhat unfair, though.
It’s worth adding (since it was one of the OP’s criteria) that the M20K (231 or 252) is at least 15-20 KTAS faster than the arrow…
(Full disclosure: my next airplane will be a 252 or a V35B TN!)
