GA_Pete wrote:
I know I can work out why. I really don’t care.
Sure, but not caring about why something happens is different from it happening “just because”. So then we are in agreement.
I’d like to reiterate that on my IFR x-europe flights GS varies with the wind (😇). As such, it’s worthless to use it as an indicator for aircraft performance.
Here’s the current airborne P28R.
And here’s all over 13.000ft
Nothing beats FR24/FAW data 
I did many hours in turbo Arrow, only two flights were above FL120, I think people tend to overstate their needs for FL200 in these…I still tell anyone it’s a turbo and I can take it FL200 over the Alps in every flight (as it sounds cool)
If one operates in 7kft density in hot summer or has FIKI in cold winters, I can see that it will be a game changer, otherwise it’s mostly maintenance fun and salesman pitch
Ahh…let’s put some positive vibe to the thread…great that you are planning to buy a plane Darkfixer! Owning your own is great fun (except for all the unexpected bills, so prepare plenty for them). The Turbo Arrow is great (if it is the one I think it is). I plan for 130-135kt all day at FL100 in an NA Arrow, so that must be significantly quicker. I very seldom go over FL100, just a hazzle. There are so many parameters to evaluate, for me it’s not only about speed. On a long trip a landing to streach your legs, practice an approach and see a new airport is just nice. A good maintenance organisation, being able to load and fly long, use grass strips is at least for me also important factors.
Best of luck!
Ibra wrote:
I did many hours in turbo Arrow, only two flights were above FL120, I think people tend to overstate their needs for FL200 in these
I am puzzling if I did even one longer flight in my Comanche below FL120. Cannot tell. I typically aim at FL120 because it’s out of all the hassle below, speed is ok, and I still don’t need oxygen . (don’t mean to start a discussion on oxygen here, but I have plenty oxygen onboard).
I also had already an experience where I was very happy having the Turbo onboard. Coming from Spain we flew over the Pyrenees back to France and further on, just ahead of a cold front. Weather was developing very quickly. Below clouds it was impossible to get through the Pyrenees. On COM I heard already lots of traffic diverting due to weather. I tried a way above and around the cloud tops, but found myself in between rapidly rising cloud tops. I had only to climb just to FL160 to get above the last top and stay clear. This was one of the situations where I was happy to still have sea level power. Without a turbo I would have had to turn around to land and wait. And if I would have tried things could have developed badly.
Pretty interesting Turbo Arrow turned up on Plane Check recently…
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=55087
Neat new instrumentation, Garmin AP, fairly low hours and so on.
I have have rented an arrow 4 turbo for some time (~30hr), and can definitely say it’s not a 150+ TAS plane. With 3 aboard and close to full load, we were achieving ~140ktas at FL80 on our trips in italy, and most of time headwind, so 110 to 130 gs. I agree there was no IC, no WG and no speed mods, but even if they could give you 10kn, you will fry your cylinders. IC and esepcially WG makes it a better airplane to manage, as its turbo management is really “old”. But with the price of the engine + turob overall close to 40Ke+, you would find an more economical (and not that slower) contender with the NA arrow 3, that also gives some better low speed controls without the T tail. that one will give you 135ktas. you can sometimes find turbo arrow3…
I agree that loosing the 6 cylinder growling noise is sad… I miss it actually
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Neat new instrumentation
It’s interesting how, depending on one’s perspective, one thing can be seen differently from person to person.
I had a quick look at the ad as mentioned, and all I saw, but for the dual G5s, is an antiquated or even jurassic panel 
My view is probably being troubled by seeing what has no almost become standard in the homebuilt world. As in riddance of the vacuum system, riddance of the whiskey compass, and most of the panel being covered by acres of touch glass panels. The whole for a fraction of the costs of the certified world…
greg_mp wrote:
gives some better low speed controls without the T tail
Yep, the T-tailed IV is certainly difficult to grease on, as its aerodynamics seem to be digital: either it flies, or not. On the other hand I experienced the turbo as a great help to out climb TCUs (ok, not all of them ) and over higher terrain. But that was a long time ago, and makes me once more realise that also those airplanes are getting real old…
Except for two G5s and the GFC500, it isn’t a specatular plane. But spectacularly overpriced.
An old, crude little video, but I never had trouble greasing on the Turbo Arrow IV.
Dan wrote:
It’s interesting how, depending on one’s perspective, one thing can be seen differently from person to person.
I had a quick look at the ad as mentioned, and all I saw, but for the dual G5s, is an antiquated or even jurassic panel
Depends what you look for. Me, I am happy with an up to date AP, GTN and EFIS giving reliable TAS and Wind readings. What that plane would get if it were to be mine and being a turbo is an up to date engine monitor with fuel totalizer.
Personally from an owner’s perspective I am not a fan of big screens, when loosing one means loosing all. But that is a question of taste.
When looking for airplanes to buy I always consider is it “fly away”, meaning I can take it and fly it without first having to modify it massively, and this one does that.
boscomantico wrote:
Except for two G5s and the GFC500, it isn’t a specatular plane. But spectacularly overpriced.
Price is always a subject of huge differences in opinion. I don’t have data for this kind of Arrow, but it appears that airplanes with mid time engines and avionics like this can easily go into this kind of price range these days. Looking at respectable valuation tools for similar airplanes, this asking price may well be realized within 10-15%. True, a few years back this plane would have been significantly under 100k, but in the current market….
