I find the stated performance completely believable particularly since the
stock airplane can reach 177kts. Don't get hung up on the 180kts though it
does not represent cruise speed. It was achieved at a power setting that is
unlikely to result in a long life for the engine. My first airplane was a
Turbo Lance with the Turboplus intercooler and all availible speed mods.
Top speed was in the low 190s. Cruise was about 170kts at 75% in the mid
teens.

Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
The Turbo Arrow III (PA-28R-201T) has a Turboplus intercooler. the
following quote has been passed along to me as being in the TurboPlus
owners manual:

"The results of the FAA Certification
flight, flown by FAA pilots on September 12, 1983 are as follows:
Take off wt. Max. gross weight
Climb speed 97 kts. IAS (best rate)
OAT 25 degrees above standard
Power during climb
to 16,000 feet 200 H.P
Rate of climb 900 FPM (avg.)
Fuel flow Full rich
Highest oil temp 201 F (240 F max)
Highest CHT 417 F (460 F max)
TAS 180 kts. (30" @ 2500 RPM)"

(a) This seems pretty extraordinary. Does anyone here have a Turbo
Arrow III configured with a Turboplus intercooler? Do they actually
experience these sorts of numbers?

(b) Are the results of "FAA Certification flights" publically accessible
somewhere so I can independently confirm this?

-Sami

Roger Halstead wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:44:21 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


Try: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/

I don't know what "range" figure they are using (range with IFR
reserves,
VFR reserves or dry tanks) but it is a place to start.


I think Mike did a great job of listing the qualifications.

They have, at least for the Beech Deb and F33 only "basic" fuel and
much of that is incorrect. OTOH there were so many combinations
listed, but not used it does get confusing. They listed 50 gallons
as the capacity, but very few ever left the factory configured that
way. The early ones had two 25 mains and two 10 aux tanks. Early on
they went to 80 gallons. (You only know when you check out the
individual airplane)

Mine, from the factory has the 4 tank arrangement for 70 gallons @ 14
per hour or 5.0 hours with no reserve of 800 miles.

I carry an extra 15 in each tip for a bit over two more hours which
is roughly 1130 miles. Whack an hour off for reserve plus change and
it's basically an 800 mile plane with a useful load of 580# with full
gas. Either some one stays home or you leave some gas behind.
4 FAA standard 170# adults = 680#

With Joyce and I, it works out just fine and we can take along almost
everything except the kitchen sink. We even get two full size
bicycles in back.

No matter how you look at it the only way a Bo would go the distance
is with tip tanks and the budget doesn't go that high. And don't
forget to go with "useable fuel" and not how much the plane will
carry.

I think he needs to add about 30 to 40 thousand (if not 60,000) to the
price and figure about $20,000 a year.

But ... I can't think of a single plane that would fit the bill.
Going to 6 seats would, except the insurance companies might get fussy
plus the price would be even higher.

What about an older 210? Course the price for maintaining an older
retract can get kinda steep too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers


Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

Mike,

Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).

Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based
on
range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
me at sources that has the information I seek.

-sami

Mike Rapoport wrote:

If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be
a
handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and

none of

them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that
there
isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any

price.

If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only

thing

that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if
it

has

to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm
legs

you

will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider

the

payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the

full

fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to

make

the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm
in

a

single since it would be difficult to find three others who are
willing

to

spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of

operating

cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs.
The

real

issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.

I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive

for

you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow

down

the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you
need
insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane

and

how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.

Mike
MU-2



"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately,
they
do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I
have
to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
seems to me that those choices begin with information about each
factor
(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.

-Sami

Mike Rapoport wrote:


What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,

speed,


range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them.
Your

price


range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out
how

much


you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you

will


never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.

If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start
reading

and


think about what you are really looking for.

Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...



Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their
crusing

speed?



It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the
list.
If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if
others
are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft
has
the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have
created
such a list somewhere?!

-Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:



Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea
of

the

type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list

down.

Here is my general list of wants/needs:

1. Fast: 160 kts
2. Price range: $75K-$120K
3. Four Seater
4. Range: 800nm
5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); 650lbs
6. Retains its value well over time
7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no

HP/complex


time)


I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo

Arrow

III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little

cramped


in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that

meets


the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and

advice.



-Sami