Peter is completely correct of course.
There are based T Tails at our strip and they have been happily operating out of 600m for years. Obviously for 4 up and luggage on a hot day at 600m, relocation may be required but that applies to most 4 seat aircraft.
It’s not impossible. But the point was that on soft grass, it is more difficult to get the nose off the ground (and thus reduce drag) due to the T-tail. Definitely. With the conventional tail, it’s easier to get that done early in the takeoff run, and that might make the difference between reaching liftoff speed in time or not.
Turbo Arrows have the further disadvanage of more weight on the nose, but on the other hand, with the manual wastegate, one can get a few more horsepower momentarily if really needed. But again, if the drag is just too high, then even more horsepower will not cut it.
Maybe a PA28-235 might also be an option for Neal? A lot of horsepower, low empty weight and thus good performance, both on takeoff and climb. Plus, if you can get mogas, you can offset some of the costs of the higher fuel consumption. At 135 vs. 120 knots on the Archer II, there is not so much of a speed improvement though.
boscomantico wrote:
Btw, are you looking for HB-reg or other?
HB would be nice but anything would work within EASA land. The financial effort of flying one in from the US or New Zealand (I found very nicely equipped TB20 there) would be too expensive compared to the acquisition cost.
Ibra wrote:
You may find good Mooney’s on that budget?
I find the Mooneys sexy but I don’t like the cramped cockpit. It’s just so tight and tipping the elbow of my copilot every time I turn a page on the kneeboard is not my desired definition of spacious.
What do you guys think about a Commander 112? I know the 114 with the turbo is more capable but also more costly in maintenance.
What do you guys think about a Commander 112?
I know owners of 114 and even 115, who are incredibly loyal to the type. Very good build quality and cabin comfort, a bit needy on take off distance required. The 112 was always viewed as underpowered, or put another way a lot of complexity for performance not much better than a good Archer.
If a RG SEP is not capable of a solid 155 KTAS (the 114 qualifies), I have never figured out why take on the additional complexity of RG and CS.
Neal wrote:
I find the Mooneys sexy but I don’t like the cramped cockpit. It’s just so tight and tipping the elbow of my copilot every time I turn a page on the kneeboard is not my desired definition of spacious.
Mooney cabin is wider than most SEPs so it’s all in your head!
On speed vs complexity, I really took Rob point, go RG & CSP only if it delivers +150kts, I just can’t count how many times we catched non-turbo Arrows with Archers on club fly-outs just by cruising at the right altitude/route…
On Mooneys cabin size on shoulders, the best to look at the cabin numbers in POH, say M20J vs F33 we are talking 43 Inch vs 42 Inch, altough 1 Inch does make difference for 22 Inch crew, but there is the perception of wide cabins is different than the actual measurements: F33 looks twice roomy with one inch less 
, the other advantage for a tall crew we get more leg & headroom but slightly more sorry for the rear pax
Rockwells are roomy and comfy, plus good looking, but need as much runway as dollars
Ibra wrote:
On speed vs complexity, I really took Rob point, go RG & CSP only if it delivers +150kts, I just can’t count how many times we catched non-turbo Arrows with Archers on club fly-outs just by cruising at the right altitude/route…
Affirm, an upgrade from an Archer II would need to have major improvements on comfort, range and speed for the additional cost.
zuutroy wrote:
Mooney cabin is wider than most SEPs so it’s all in your head!
I measured it myself and it is only a few cm more narrow than the C182 and almost the same as in the Archer. But doing cockpit work in a Mooney means you are hitting the copilot’s elbow often. Maybe it’s the way the seats are arranged and placed tighter besides each other, I don’t know. But it is not just a feeling for me, it is real.
Neal wrote:
But doing cockpit work in a Mooney means you are hitting the copilot’s elbow often. Maybe it’s the way the seats are arranged and placed tighter besides each other, I don’t know. But it is not just a feeling for me, it is real.
I am quite big and I don’t have any problem in my C-Model Cockpit with anyone so far. I’ve flown in PA28’s and Arrows as well as in Cessnas and once or twice in a Beech 95. All of them are a tight fit for someone who is broad shouldered. My personal experience is however that the Mooney has excellent leg room in the front seat. It is tight in the back in the C and E models, but about the same as a PA28 in G, F and thereon and better than a PA28 in the long body planes.
If space is your concern, you need to go TB20, Cirrus or Rockwell Commander or if you want to stay with Piper, look at Saratogas or Cherokee 6’s.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If space is your concern, you need to go TB20
As a tall person I have to disagree. When I flew a TB20, my head was always stuck under the cabin roof, and the awkward placement of some controls meant that for me at least, the cockpit ayout was overall significantly worse than in any other aircraft I have flown (C172, PA 28 and Aquila A210).
Note that the specific aircraft I have flown may have been a particularly bad example, it was a 1984 model year. I know that Peter’s TB20 GT has more cabin room.
I have flown TB10, and i’m not such a tall guy (1m78) but i’m not very far from the top. The owner (1m90 I would say) has to recline the seat to fit without issue. I don’t know if tb10 and 20 are different, I know that TB20GT and 10XL has more room. But it’s not tremendously different from an arrow. I am looking at and playing on sim with a beech F33a and looks a bit more room.
