Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

brucek

Carenado Arrow performance.

Recommended Posts

I have never flown the Arrow so don't knowm what to expect, however it seems quite underpowered when compared to the model in the Elite sim, and going by the specs I should be able to get it up around 160 KIAS, which seems impossible in the Carenado model. I'm wondering if anyone who has actually flown this a/c and who ahs the Carenado product can comment?Thanks, Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I, too, find it underpowered. Perhaps that is how it should be but going from published specs on the Internet I should be getting better performance at altitude. I am very interested in any "real world" comments for this particular aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never flown the Arrow so don't knowm what to expect, however it seems quite underpowered when compared to the model in the Elite sim, and going by the specs I should be able to get it up around 160 KIAS, which seems impossible in the Carenado model.
I, too, have never flown (or for that matter, even seen) an Arrow IV in real life, but some specs I found online say it cruises at around 130 KIAS, with a top speed of just under 150 KIAS, which are doable in the sim (at least the 130 kts cruise...never tried for top speed).Are you sure you didn't look up the stats for the Turbo Arrow IV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, too, have never flown (or for that matter, even seen) an Arrow IV in real life, but some specs I found online say it cruises at around 130 KIAS, with a top speed of just under 150 KIAS, which are doable in the sim (at least the 130 kts cruise...never tried for top speed).Are you sure you didn't look up the stats for the Turbo Arrow IV?
You may be right, I probably got it confused with the Turbo Arrow specs. I was not able to find specs for the non-turbo version, if you can provide a link that would be much apprecaited. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone posted on another forum that the real life Arrow IV is underpowered. The thing I noticed right away was that it took a considerably longer take-off roll than a Cessna 172.They also mentioned having to pull back more on the yoke when rotating because the T-tail doesn't have a lot of authority. But once it "bites", if you're not careful, the nose will pitch up and the aircraft can stall. I would guess the Carenado bird is fairly accurate.Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone posted on another forum that the real life Arrow IV is underpowered. The thing I noticed right away was that it took a considerably longer take-off roll than a Cessna 172.They also mentioned having to pull back more on the yoke when rotating because the T-tail doesn't have a lot of authority. But once it "bites", if you're not careful, the nose will pitch up and the aircraft can stall. I would guess the Carenado bird is fairly accurate.Jim
Thanks for all the comments. Interesting on the T-tail elevator authority.Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right, I probably got it confused with the Turbo Arrow specs. I was not able to find specs for the non-turbo version, if you can provide a link that would be much apprecaited. Thanks.
I have about 200 right seat hours in an arrow-but the lower hp. version. 130 knots is about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right, I probably got it confused with the Turbo Arrow specs. I was not able to find specs for the non-turbo version, if you can provide a link that would be much apprecaited. Thanks.
Here's what I found for the non-turbo Arrow:http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane424.shtmlFor comparison, these are the given specs for the Turbo Arrow:http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane423.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have about 200 right seat hours in an arrow-but the lower hp. version. 130 knots is about it.
Of course some of the performance/speed depends on wind direction and speed. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never flown the Arrow so don't knowm what to expect, however it seems quite underpowered when compared to the model in the Elite sim, and going by the specs I should be able to get it up around 160 KIAS, which seems impossible in the Carenado model. I'm wondering if anyone who has actually flown this a/c and who ahs the Carenado product can comment?Thanks, Bruce.
From my POH for the Arrow IV, as far as speeds go:VNE: 190 KIASVNO: 149 KIASVA:2750lbs: 121 KIAS1863lbs: 96 KIASVFE: 108 KIASMax Gear Extension: 130 KIASMax Gear Retraction: 109 KIASVLE: 130 KIASI don't have Carenados version, so I can't comment on the performance. The real one though, to be honest, isn't that great. I haven't met many people that really love the Arrow, though there are people out there that do. The performance isn't very good due to carrying a LOT more fuel than the Archer (the Archer has 48gal. usable whereas the Arrow has 72 usable) while only having 20 more horsepower. I don't know if Carenado modeled one that has been in service for awhile or not, but I wouldn't expect to be realistically able to maintain 149kts in real life unless it's brand new and conditions are really perfect. I'd say 120 - 130 would be a more realistic value for you to be looking for depending on weather.All that being said I do think that the Arrow IV is a great looking airplane. When one is done to someones standards for their personal airplane rather than a club or training airplane they can look absolutely outstanding. The normal Arrow with the regular tail just looks too much like an Archer for me to get excited, haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some time in the Arrow and just wanted to give my input (although not near as much as Geofa).The Arrow does feel, in the sim. pretty close to how the real life Arrow does. It is a relatively heavy aircraft relative to it's power, so it is not quick by any means. It is basically a Cherokee PA-28-180 with a LOT more fuel and the added weight of gear retracts, as well as the constant speed prop equipment. So, yes, it is underpowered.Another note I'd like to make is that flying the Arrow at anything outside of enroute legs (enroute climb, descent, and cruise) requires more muscle than you would normally find in other aircraft of this class - she flies very nose-heavy/nose-high when in the pattern and when in landing/take-off phases. Often times I will actually have the trim maxed out on nose-up, and I still require hefty back pressure on the yoke during landing (Trim is the first thing I do when touching down or going around... apply power, immediately nose-down trim to cancel out the pitch-up, gear up, etc)Once you are at your cruise altitude and at speed, the Arrow is pleasant enough to fly.As was mentioned above, there are not a lot of people who truly love the Arrow for what it is, but it is not a bad aircraft either. Just needed 200 horses, not 180.Also, as for cruise speed - my Arrow was an older model, but just as was said above as well, don't expect high speeds. It has been a while but if my memory serves me right, my last flight was at 12,500 and I got 125 IAS at standard cruise settings (about 55-60 degrees OAT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...All that being said I do think that the Arrow IV is a great looking airplane. When one is done to someones standards for their personal airplane rather than a club or training airplane they can look absolutely outstanding. The normal Arrow with the regular tail just looks too much like an Archer for me to get excited, haha.
I flew the older Arrow with the standard tail, and I have to agree - it does look plain. Basically the only real obvious difference is the stance, the obvious retracts, and the prop. Didn't help that the one I flew was an ugly orange on white scheme... However, like you said, I have seen some Arrows that look jaw-droppingly spectacular in custom paint schemes. My favorite one has to be a dark blue on silver scheme. It was a silvery color with a wavy dark blue strip on the sides. Looked almost like a PC-12 paint job if you get my idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The underpower that you are experiencing is from the new gas saving initiative by Washington D.C. And you thought it was only for cars!Bob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it can be a sharp looking plane. The friend I fly with had a new paint job and leather interior put in a few years ago (it had also been an ugly orange before that) and it looks like a new aircraft.They are nice docile planes-very stable- cramped for backseat passengers. My friend always jokes he doesn't need altitude hold on his autopilot-and he is right-take your hand off the yoke and it pretty much stays there. I was in the market for one when I was a fairly new pilot years ago as it seemed a good step up from the archer I was flying at the time, and only a little more complex. The automatic landing gear is an interesting feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if Carenado modeled one that has been in service for awhile or not, but I wouldn't expect to be realistically able to maintain 149kts in real life unless it's brand new and conditions are really perfect. I'd say 120 - 130 would be a more realistic value for you to be looking for depending on weather.
If you want to send your Arrow into maintenance for a performance upgrade, a small edit will provide a 12.5% horsepower boost.. and allow you to cruise at 150 kts.In the aircraft.cfg file:[piston_engine]power_scalar = 1.125 //Piston power scalar was 1.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites