I had mentioned turbo arrow, he mentioned arrow, Alot of people confuse the
two, putting them in the same catagory not knowing there is a difference.

My personal opinion is that a comanche is still the best plane for the money
for useful load and speed. the only problems with them is the avionics are
usually outdated, avionics are so expensive alot of people dont upgrade them.
My wife only let me upgrade to our current plane if I promised to get one with
airconditioning, so the comanche was out for us. Also the turbo arrows I looked
at all seemed to have more options in them then most other planes in the same
catagory., ie, storm scope, airconditioning, HSI, auto pilot.

The main problem with a turbo arrow for me, is the rate of climb. you only use
max horse power for take off, then at about 1000 ft you reduce power to cruise
climb which is 75% power. and 75% power at 104 kts only gets you about 500 FPM.
Its kinda a trade off, turbo's are good if you consistantly fly higher, if you
like lower then no need to really get it, unless you want the extra speed it
has, and for the price, its a pretty good deal. At 10,000-12,000 ft your
hanging with bigger/faster planes like the bonanza.



Ben Jackson wrote:


He didn't say Turbo Arrow III, did he? Or did all Arrow IIIs come with
TIO-360s? If he's talking turbo that makes some sense, since the numbers
are similar to the Comanche and the M20J. The big difference will be
that the optimal altitudes will be higher in the turbo. That's a win if
you're in Colorado but probably a lose on the coasts or in the midwest.
The Comanche peaks at ~160KTAS @ 7000' @ 75%, like all non-turbos it
can't hold 75% beyond that, dropping back to ~155KTAS @ 10000 @ 65%.
The Turbo Arrow probably doesn't even hit its peak until the low teens,
but I don't have a chart for it.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/