I think it depends on how you use it.
One cannot IMHO fly VFR usefully with just a KLN89/KLN94 because the nav screen (page 4) is way too small
But if you have an MFD that changes things totally (life gets a bit sad when you do google/images and the best pics are from your own website 
)
Then, you plan your VFR flight on IFR waypoints which are in the GPS database already (something else the PPL machine didn’t teach you) and fly the planned route.
Unfortunately a significant % of Ipad nav app users do their nav on the go (I have flown with quite a few of the users) and the apps are very much designed to facilitate that mode of operation. They can be used with a preplanned route, of course, but the incentive to preplan is a lot less, whereas with the panel mount setup the incentive to preplan is pretty well total.
I would also suggest that a large part of the market success of these apps is due to penetrating the markets where people don’t preplan much (or at all). But then one could make the same comment about improving any tool – it facilitates access to an activity which was previously the domain of the fewer 
A and C
Thank you for your offer. The problem with the King GPS in the Arrow that I fly is no one in the club really knows how to use it, I don’t have the opportunity to sit in the plane with the master switch on playing with it. I’ll find out what it is and let you know and your tips will be appreciated, thank you. I can say though, I don’t spend any more time ‘head in cockpit’ than anyone else either using another GPS device, radio nav aids or dead reckoning.
Unfortunately a significant % of Ipad nav app users do their nav on the go (I have flown with quite a few of the users) and the apps are very much designed to facilitate that mode of operation.
Why “unfortunately”? I think there is nothing wrong with this and I often do it myself like this. I don’t think a builtin GPS or MFD adds much value in 2014, the apps are far superior. I can’t understand why you believe your CGA screen is such a great thing for situation awareness. When the circumstances are right (good wx, NOTAMs checked, familiar with the area), then I don’t need any additional planning that couldn’t be done in the air with my tablets.
It obviously depends in the type of flight. For a rather simple, domestic flight, really there is no “homework” required. Whilst I would strictly against planning in flight, one can indeed (before starting up) sit down in the aircraft, fire up say SD and
-do a quick check of AIP entries, airfield plates, NOTAMs
-create a route, have a short look at terrain, airspace on the way
-do a quick check of the weather
in 5-10 minutes and then go.
In fact, one could argue that the people who refuse to use modern technology and insist on planning their flights more “conventionally” at home are also those who are more likely to get surprised by for example worsening weather enroute (since they have old data).
The only cases where I would advise against doing so is when the destination is PPR (UK!) and where there is a chance that the request yields a negative response (for whatever reason). It would then be a pity having driven to the airfield and having prepared the aircraft for nothing. But then again, many people don’t have real “destinations” with their flying and will just choose another (usually more “boring”) airfield.
I don’t like these situations. That’s why my flight planning is usually divided into three phases, “strategical”, “tactical” and “operational” (where, sometimes one of those phases might be an effort of less than a few minutes).
But then again, many people don’t have real “destinations” with their flying and will just choose another (usually more “boring”) airfield.
True – and that leads to lots of people giving up, because they keep going to boring places.
There are other ways to keep flying enjoyable (e.g. aerobatics) but those who just fly straight and level to boring places just down the road are at a very high risk of giving up, and being able to do it with an Ipad app isn’t going to make them fly for longer.
The UK numbers for giving up are approximately 90% not revalidating at the 2-year point, after the initial PPL. The CAA doesn’t publish this figure (let’s face it; it does show GA in very poor light) but they have come out with it in presentations, verbally. Nobody knows when they actually gave up, during those two years. It was these staggering numbers (which I saw first hand during my PPL training) which pushed me into writing up my earliest trips in 2003.
Ultimately, the more interesting trips do need preplanning (not just phoning the airport, and note that even a German airport could have just had a mishap on the runway and be closed when you get there) and I can’t see that changing in the European scenario.
The fact that my MFD is 320×240 pixels is irrelevant. It is what I have, it completely does the job for European VFR and IFR flight, it has European VRPs (the only panel mount product to have them, before some very recent stuff), and changing it while gaining worthwhile new capability will be my next job: 2 x IFD540, cost about $28,000 for the two boxes alone, plus VAT and installation
Hi Mark.
Not sure if you’ve seen the price list, but being in the Aeros club only costs £30 a month, and the discount on the Arrow midweek is huge. Even with a minimum requirement of 12 months membership at £300, you’ll be saving way more than that by flying 10 hours in the Arrow at the lower rate (£151 vs £226).
N
Small question to you Arrow guys out there.
While researching the Arrow III and Turbo Arrow IV I noticed that while the Arrow III’s I checked had very decent full fuel payload (up to 300 kgs) the Turbo Arrow IVs seem to have significantly lower payload of around 200 kgs with full fuel.
It appears that the IV is around 900 kgs empty than the III with 750 kgs. MTOW of the IV is 1315 kg vs the 1250 kg of the III means a difference of 65 kgs vs 150 kgs more empty?
What are your inputs here? Is the Arrow III really so much more capable in terms of load carrying than the Turbo IV?
No. In real life, IIIs and IVs weigh much the same. About 820kgs give or take. Not much difference except the different looking tail.
Also, all IIIs and IVs are 1247kg MTOW. Hence, roughly 430 kgs of payload, or, at full tanks (272 litres), roughly 230kgs.
The big difference was betwwen the IIs and IIIs, where MTOW went up from 1198 to 1247kgs and where fuel capacity went from 50 gallons to 72 gallons.
Don’t mix up NAs with Turbos. It’s the latter which has an MTOW of 1315kgs. Also, these (but again, irrespective of III or IV) obviously weigh more (towards 870kg), so they end up having very roughly the same useful load (445kgs) as the non-Turbo IIIs and IVs.
Then there are also the (fewish) post-1989 models, which look like IIIs, but are effectively just “Piper Arrows” without any model number given to them by the marketing department. They also have roughly the same specs as the IIIs and IVs.
The above are appoximate empty weights and can obviously vary somewhat with equipment. A few late model examples may have air conditioning which adds considerable weight.
The UK numbers for giving up are approximately 90% not revalidating at the 2-year point, after the initial PPL. The CAA doesn’t publish this figure (let’s face it; it does show GA in very poor light) but they have come out with it in presentations, verbally. Nobody knows when they actually gave up, during those two years. It was these staggering numbers (which I saw first hand during my PPL training) which pushed me into writing up my earliest trips in 2003.
That is indeed as staggering revelation – I have never heard of such.
This obviously is not the thread to discuss this, is there another where we can drill down on this Peter ?
This obviously is not the thread to discuss this, is there another where we can drill down on this Peter ?
We’ve had multiple threads here on this topic, but we can always start one more because perspectives change and this is a big thing. A very small reduction in the “pilot losses” would dramatically increase GA activity.
