Carenado Arrow performance.

[protzler 0]

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.

I hope I didn't come across the wrong way. I do like the way the regular Arrow looks as well, just not as much. There was one in the maintenance hanger a few months ago that was painted white/black with black leather interior and a lot of glass in the panel! Easily one of the best looking planes (aside from planes from the 20's-30's) I've seen. It's been years, but I used to know a guy that had an Arrow that I think he treated better than his kids. If I recall correctly it also was beautiful. I only saw it once since it was a hanger queen.

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. 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.

I haven't been in all that many different Arrows. The ones I have been in though had the automatic gear system disabled. These were in training airplanes though, so it's understandable. It still seemed odd to me though since all you had to do to stop it was put the emergency gear selector in the up position. I'm almost embarrassed to say it, but I like a lot of the older schemes that GA manufacturers used in the 70's. New paint generally does look much much better though than the typical L shaped ribbon thing on the tail that Piper loved to use, hahaha.I'm really jealous of your friend, and others like him that have leather interiors! The only plane I flew with leather was an SR-22 and I loved it. It's so much better than the stained shag carpeting and smell-keeping seats.

[brucek 38]

Some excellent comments, thanks.One thought comes to mind. My real flying experience is limited to Cessnas (172 mainly, also 152). Why would you buy an Arrow and not a C182RG, is this a financial issue (182RG costs more), or perhaps a preference for a low wing aircraft? The 182RG (at least as also modelled by Carenado) has much neter performance. Maybe apples and oranges?Bruce.

[curt1 79]

For those who would like a real Arrow IV checklist, check this site out.learntoflytoday.net/downloads/piper4.pdf Curt

[protzler 0]

Some excellent comments, thanks.One thought comes to mind. My real flying experience is limited to Cessnas (172 mainly, also 152). Why would you buy an Arrow and not a C182RG, is this a financial issue (182RG costs more), or perhaps a preference for a low wing aircraft? The 182RG (at least as also modelled by Carenado) has much neter performance. Maybe apples and oranges?Bruce.

One bad thing about the 182RG, and other Cessna's that use that system, is that the gear is quirky. The system has a reputation for failing, and being that the mains swing forward and down, they don't like to come down on their own. I've heard a lot of stories about people keeping a golf club in the cabin with them so that they could hook the gear and pull them forward just in case!I'm a big Piper guy, however in performance what I've found is that Cessna's are generally a little faster than Pipers. I had the chance to try out Carenado's Archer awhile ago, and I really wasn't impressed with the handling. It just wasn't stable like it should have been. To put it plainly, it should fly a lot more like the Cessna's they model.

[brucek 38]

One bad thing about the 182RG, and other Cessna's that use that system, is that the gear is quirky. The system has a reputation for failing, and being that the mains swing forward and down, they don't like to come down on their own. I've heard a lot of stories about people keeping a golf club in the cabin with them so that they could hook the gear and pull them forward just in case!I'm a big Piper guy, however in performance what I've found is that Cessna's are generally a little faster than Pipers. I had the chance to try out Carenado's Archer awhile ago, and I really wasn't impressed with the handling. It just wasn't stable like it should have been. To put it plainly, it should fly a lot more like the Cessna's they model.

Thanks, I think Cessna did away with the RG model just because of those liabilities with the gear.Bruce.

[brucek 38]

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?

I read through the replies to my original post and figured that the Arrow made by Carenado was probably correct for the somewhat-less-performance of the non-turbo model. Then I got this e-mail this morning from a flight-sim vendor, which I have copied part of below:Piper PA28RT 201 Arrow IVWhen it comes to light aircraft, they don't come much nicer than the Piper Arrow. 200 horses under the cowling, a cruise speed of 170 knots and a 20,000 foot service ceiling, this aircraft will get you there high enough and fast enough yet at the same time letting you enjoy the world beneath you. Flying the Arrow is classic general aviation flying at its best. Made by Carenado who are renown for their quality GA light aircraft recreations. "This is not the bird that I purchased, if performance is anything to go by.Thanks, Bruce.

[Geofa 108]

I read through the replies to my original post and figured that the Arrow made by Carenado was probably correct for the somewhat-less-performance of the non-turbo model. Then I got this e-mail this morning from a flight-sim vendor, which I have copied part of below:Piper PA28RT 201 Arrow IVWhen it comes to light aircraft, they don't come much nicer than the Piper Arrow. 200 horses under the cowling, a cruise speed of 170 knots and a 20,000 foot service ceiling, this aircraft will get you there high enough and fast enough yet at the same time letting you enjoy the world beneath you. Flying the Arrow is classic general aviation flying at its best. Made by Carenado who are renown for their quality GA light aircraft recreations. "This is not the bird that I purchased, if performance is anything to go by.Thanks, Bruce.

I assume that is the turbo model? Is the Carenado turboed?http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane424.shtml

[coturnix 1]

I assume that is the turbo model? Is the Carenado turboed?http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/info/airplane424.shtml

No, it

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

I read through the replies to my original post and figured that the Arrow made by Carenado was probably correct for the somewhat-less-performance of the non-turbo model. Then I got this e-mail this morning from a flight-sim vendor, which I have copied part of below:Piper PA28RT 201 Arrow IVWhen it comes to light aircraft, they don't come much nicer than the Piper Arrow. 200 horses under the cowling, a cruise speed of 170 knots and a 20,000 foot service ceiling, this aircraft will get you there high enough and fast enough yet at the same time letting you enjoy the world beneath you. Flying the Arrow is classic general aviation flying at its best. Made by Carenado who are renown for their quality GA light aircraft recreations. "This is not the bird that I purchased, if performance is anything to go by.Thanks, Bruce.

That is simply an error in the ad copy... the reference documents that come with the aircraft list a maximum structural speed of 149 knots.See below:

[Geofa 108]

No, it

[TrafficPilot 121]

I tried the Carenado Arrow on a friends FSX setup last week. The one thing I didn't like was the tendency of the nose to smack into the tarmac on landing despite holding full back pressure on the yoke once the main gear was in contact with the runway. It certainly doesn't do this in real life - if it did there would be lots of noseleg-less Arrows around?! I have around 20 hrs in a Turbo Arrow. I usually fly (daily) the Cessna 172SP.Anyone else noticed this? And yes the aircraft was correctly trimmed on the approach!AdamTrafficPilot

[PelicanHazard 0]

^ I've flown it a few times and that has never happened to me. Of course, I always try to grease my landings and end up hitting with a vertical speed less than -100 fpm but really close to stall speed (I know, bad form, but I haven't flown the plane long enough to tweak my landing style to it).

[Deaf Pilot 1]

I read through the replies to my original post and figured that the Arrow made by Carenado was probably correct for the somewhat-less-performance of the non-turbo model. Then I got this e-mail this morning from a flight-sim vendor, which I have copied part of below:Piper PA28RT 201 Arrow IVWhen it comes to light aircraft, they don't come much nicer than the Piper Arrow. 200 horses under the cowling, a cruise speed of 170 knots and a 20,000 foot service ceiling, this aircraft will get you there high enough and fast enough yet at the same time letting you enjoy the world beneath you. Flying the Arrow is classic general aviation flying at its best. Made by Carenado who are renown for their quality GA light aircraft recreations. "This is not the bird that I purchased, if performance is anything to go by.Thanks, Bruce.

Well, we have clarified that the Carenado model is definitely not turbo'ed, and the performance it puts out certainly says it is not as well. Matches quite well with the 180HP real-life Arrow.That aside, I have to laugh at that 170kt/20,000' figure... I doubt any Arrow out there has ever seen that kind of performance, even with custom mods. And as for "they don't come much nicer than the Arrow"? Um... yeah they do... sure it's a matter of taste but I feel pretty safe saying that, in their words, "when it comes to light aircraft", they DO come much nicer and better performing. For the same cost? Yep even for the same cost. Like I said, it's all a matter of what you personally want in an aircraft.