First Time Buyer - High Time Turbo Arrow

[[email protected]]

I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
this?

I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.

[zatatime]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:17:47 -0400, " <Mark
Miller> wrote:

>I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
>new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
>the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
>but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.
>
>My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
>aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.
>
>Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
>airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
>this?
>
>I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
>analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
>look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
>one trip, I would guess.
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.

7000 hours can vary greatly. Were all 7000 spent training students?
Or were most cross country flights made by owners. I own a Cherokee
235B with about 6700 hours and it flies great! I was not concerned at
all when I went to see the airplane as I had read through the logbooks
and had a picture of the planes past use and maintenance. I also had
pictures of the exterior and interior.

I was within a 6 hour train ride so it wasn't so bad, but when I got
on the train I knew if the pre-buy matched what I already thought I'd
give the guy a check. Needless to say, it worked out.

Someone I respect with more than 60 years as a mechanic and airport
operator has a neat concept for bringing owner and buyer together.

Study the logs(with your mechanic), look at pictures, etc. and get a
feel for if you want the plane. If you do, offer the seller
re-imbursement for all expenses to get the plane to you, and a return
trip on the airline of his choice if the pre-buy goes as expected.
You may even want to send him a check for 500 or 1000 dollars so he
knows you're serious. If he balks he may be hiding something.
Obviously he may not have the time either, but try to convince him to
get the plane to you. An honest seller shouldn't have any problem
with this approach. You won't lose any money either because you'll
have to pay it for you to travel anyway, and it'll let your mechanic
do the once over. It'll also allow the owner to have one last flight
in his bird.,

I've seen this work first hand, and the mechanic I'm speaking of says
it has worked many time in his life. It'll also save you multiple
trips across the country.

Hope this helps.

z

[tony roberts]

When is the annual due?
When I bought my plane I had the owner agree to pay for an annual at a
shop of my choosing - with the understanding that I guaranteed to buy it
unless any major unresolved concerns arose from the annual.
One item that I included was oil analysis.

Insist on oil analysis (although it won't tell you zip about the high
time airframe, it will tell you lots about the engine.

Insist that all outstanding AD's are fixed at this annual,

and have a thorough examination/report on the airframe.

I did all of those things, the owner agreed, and now I own the aircraft.
It's a buyers market - don't let anyone tell you otherwise

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE






In article >,
" <Mark Miller> wrote:

> I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
> new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
> the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
> but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.
>
> My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
> aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.
>
> Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
> airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
> this?
>
> I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
> analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
> look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
> one trip, I would guess.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>

[[email protected]]

<Mark Miller> wrote:
: I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
: new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
: the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
: but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My mechanic has a '77 turbo arrow with the Continental TSIO-360 210hp in it.
I would imagine the '82 is the same?. I (personally) wouldn't touch that
engine/airframe combination with a "10-meter cattle prod." It's notorious for
roasting cylinders, cooking turbos, and has an extremely twitchy throttle response due
to the turbo lag/boost. Even with the improved STC'd wastegate he put on, it's
still twitchy and makes boost all the time that must be throttled. It's also
necessarily neutered at 7:1 to keep it from detonating. I get 180 hp out of a carb'd
O-360 with more detonation margin on 93 octane cargas than his TSIO-360 on 100LL. Of
course if you go high, it's a different game, but my friend doesn't even have his
oxygen set up.

If that's the setup you want/need, that's fine... just making you aware of the
issues. I'd much rather have more engine and normally aspirated, but for an arrow
you're kinda stuck. If I ever get a turbo it'll be turbo-normalized at most.

Other than that, I wouldn't let 7000 hours dissuade you inherently. It's much
more a matter of how those hours were put on and maintained. Check the logs
thoroughly with someone who works on Arrows a lot, but don't assume they're correct.
There's an awful lot of "pencil-whipping" out there... especially for expensive
repairs. Take your mechanic arrow-expert to look at it... he'll know what big (read:
expensive) items to check for (gear issues, signs of a gear-up landing, shoddy
avionics installs, etc).

-Cory


--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

On 19-Jun-2004, " <Mark Miller> wrote:

> I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to hear
> how people handle that. More than
> one trip, I would guess.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.



Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in
this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular
maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious problems.
This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you from
wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment.

If the mechanic (or it could be a trusted pilot friend) reports back that
the plane APPEARS to be as advertised, THEN go ahead and arrange for a
thorough pre-buy and/or an in-person inspection.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[kage]

Make sure you have the owner pick you up at the airport in his car.

You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the airplane
just by looking at his car. This happened to me when I went to Denver to
look at an Aztec that was billed as immaculate. When the guy (airline pilot,
that should raise the warning flag) picked me up in a beater BMW I suspected
the worst, and I was sorely disappointed in the airplane.

Sellers often extremely overstate the condition of the airplane for sale.

Beware, and remember the vast majority of pilots are cheapskates!

Karl



> wrote in message
...
>
> On 19-Jun-2004, " <Mark Miller> wrote:
>
> > I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to
hear
> > how people handle that. More than
> > one trip, I would guess.
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
> not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in
> this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular
> maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious
problems.
> This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you
from
> wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment.
>
> If the mechanic (or it could be a trusted pilot friend) reports back that
> the plane APPEARS to be as advertised, THEN go ahead and arrange for a
> thorough pre-buy and/or an in-person inspection.
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

[zatatime]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:52:35 -0700, "kage" >
wrote:

>You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the airplane
>just by looking at his car.


I don't agree. I drive a used car that looks like hell, but is
mechanically sound. I did this as a trade off so I had enough money
to buy and maintain my airplane (which looks nothing like my car).

z

[Martin Kosina]

> I would imagine the '82 is the same?. I (personally) wouldn't touch that
> engine/airframe combination with a "10-meter cattle prod." It's notorious
> for roasting cylinders, cooking turbos, and has an extremely twitchy throttle
> response due to the turbo lag/boost.

As I recall, this was essentially the Av. Consumer's conclusion as
well - the TSIO-360/PA-28R airframe has been a problematic match in
the hands of less than careful, low-altitude operators. At 1100 SMOH
and unknown history, you should probably consider it a near-runout.
But, with a fresh engine and good engine instrumentation, it can
probably be managed. I know there aren't many other candidates in this
price range, the TR182's are expensive, straight-leg T182s are rare,
and not many 177RG's have been converted yet, either.

[Henry Kisor]

I agree with you! For a long time the car I drove to the airport was a
sad-looking beater. It was roadworthy, like yours, but it wasn't the kind
that picked up chicks. Far from it.

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:52:35 -0700, "kage" >
> wrote:
>
> >You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the
airplane
> >just by looking at his car.
>
>
> I don't agree. I drive a used car that looks like hell, but is
> mechanically sound. I did this as a trade off so I had enough money
> to buy and maintain my airplane (which looks nothing like my car).
>
> z

[Aaron Coolidge]

<Mark Miller> wrote:
: My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
: aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

: Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
: airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
: this?

As others have said, the PA28 airframe should be OK at that hour figure;
mine has 6300+ hours on it, and one of the rentals at my home field
has 13,000+ hours on it.

A friend of mine has a 77 or 78 non-turbo arrow. His has 9000+ hours on it.
He has found that the main difficulties were with the main gear trunions,
which were quite worn. I believe that Piper has a service bulletin on this
typw of wear. He also had problems with the wing-walk reinforcement which is
typical for a Cherokee.
Other than that it has been a very solid airplane for him.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[zatatime]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:44:31 -0500, "Henry Kisor"
> wrote:

>but it wasn't the kind
>that picked up chicks. Far from it.

ROTFLMFAO! I've been acussed of that in the past when I've offered to
drive when going out with a few people. Well put.

Thanks for the laugh.

z

[Robert M. Gary]

> Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
> not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in
> this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular
> maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious problems.
> This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you from
> wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment.

I wonder what an A&P can actually tell in that amount of time. When I
was shopping for a Champ most A&Ps said they would need at least 5
hours before they know much of anything. My Mooney pre-buy cost be
$2500. I guess if there is something really obvious, this might help,
but otherwise, I'm not sure.

-Robert

[Michael]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
> I wonder what an A&P can actually tell in that amount of time. When I
> was shopping for a Champ most A&Ps said they would need at least 5
> hours before they know much of anything. My Mooney pre-buy cost be
> $2500. I guess if there is something really obvious, this might help,
> but otherwise, I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, most of the planes on the market have really obvious
things wrong with them. I can't comment on the Mooney, but here's
what I can tell about a Champ in an hour:

Condition of fabric - does it pass the punch test (at the minimum
acceptable strength using a Maule tester) on the top of the wings,
fuselage, and tailfeathers? Is there a shiny enamel coat? Cracking of
paint? Ringworm?

Condition of engine/prop - is there a weak jug when the prop is pulled
through? Are there exhaust leaks?

Condition of lower longerons - when I tap with a wrench, is there a
dull sound?

Condition of spars - have the inspection holes been cut? Are there
nails sticking out? Will a screwdriver go into the wood?

I assure you that I can accomplish all the above in an hour, and I'm
not a Champ expert (though I have wrenched on them a bit). What's
more, my experience is that 90% of the Champs for sale won't pass
those tests. Most of the planes out there for sale are dogs - and
that goes double if you're trying to get a 'deal.' If you pay for a
full-blown prepurhase for each one, you will soon run out of money.

Michael

[Jeff]

Mark
I own a Turbo Arrow III, Personally I would not be concerned with the TT,
but with the engine time, almost 1200 hours on an 1800 hour engine, an
engine that runs very hot and with a long history of cracking cyliners, to
many potential problems. Expensive problems.

Personally, I wouldnt touch a t-arrow with more then 400-500 hours on the
engine.


" wrote:

> I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
> new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
> the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
> but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.
>
> My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
> aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.
>
> Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
> airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
> this?
>
> I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
> analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
> look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
> one trip, I would guess.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.

[Jeff]

the turbo arrow has a TSIO-360-F or -FB engine, its only 200 HP, the FB being the
preferred engine since it has the 1800 hour TBO and the cylinders do not crack as easy as
the ones in the -F model engine did.


wrote:

> <Mark Miller> wrote:
> : I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
> : new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
> : the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
> : but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.
>
> My mechanic has a '77 turbo arrow with the Continental TSIO-360 210hp in it.
> I would imagine the '82 is the same?. I (personally) wouldn't touch that
> engine/airframe combination with a "10-meter cattle prod." It's notorious for
> roasting cylinders, cooking turbos, and has an extremely twitchy throttle response due
> to the turbo lag/boost. Even with the improved STC'd wastegate he put on, it's
> still twitchy and makes boost all the time that must be throttled. It's also
> necessarily neutered at 7:1 to keep it from detonating. I get 180 hp out of a carb'd
> O-360 with more detonation margin on 93 octane cargas than his TSIO-360 on 100LL. Of
> course if you go high, it's a different game, but my friend doesn't even have his
> oxygen set up.
>
> If that's the setup you want/need, that's fine... just making you aware of the
> issues. I'd much rather have more engine and normally aspirated, but for an arrow
> you're kinda stuck. If I ever get a turbo it'll be turbo-normalized at most.
>
> Other than that, I wouldn't let 7000 hours dissuade you inherently. It's much
> more a matter of how those hours were put on and maintained. Check the logs
> thoroughly with someone who works on Arrows a lot, but don't assume they're correct.
> There's an awful lot of "pencil-whipping" out there... especially for expensive
> repairs. Take your mechanic arrow-expert to look at it... he'll know what big (read:
> expensive) items to check for (gear issues, signs of a gear-up landing, shoddy
> avionics installs, etc).
>
> -Cory
>
> --
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * The prime directive of Linux: *
> * - learn what you don't know, *
> * - teach what you do. *
> * (Just my 20 USm$) *
> ************************************************** ***********************

[Jeff]

Mark
the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a
Turbo Arrow always seem to have nothing but horror stories to say about it
or the engine.
I have not had any problems with my engine or any major problems with
landing gear, turbo or anything else.
You can find turbo arrows with low time engines for sale that have really
good avionics and upgrades already in them.
Its a good 150 kt airplane thats nice and stable and as I said, no major
problems.

If you fly the plane hard its of course going to have problems, Fly it by
the book and she will do you right.
since you do not know how the previous owner flew it, try to find one with
a low time engine.
Where is this plane located at, if its near me I will take a peek at it
for you.

Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com


" wrote:

> I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
> new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
> the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
> but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.
>
> My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
> aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.
>
> Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
> airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
> this?
>
> I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
> analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
> look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
> one trip, I would guess.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.

[Matt Whiting]

Jeff wrote:

> Mark
> I own a Turbo Arrow III, Personally I would not be concerned with the TT,
> but with the engine time, almost 1200 hours on an 1800 hour engine, an
> engine that runs very hot and with a long history of cracking cyliners, to
> many potential problems. Expensive problems.

I wouldn't either if the TT is less than 10,000 or so and the airplane
hasn't done a lot of low altitude work such as pipeline patrol, banner
towing, etc. All Al structures are subject to fatigue and we just don't
have a lot of experience with typical GA airframes with more than 10,000
hours TT. I know of several small airplanes with 8,000 or more hours,
but I've seen only a few with more than 10,000 hours. I'd be leery
flying one above 10,000 hours unless you know of several of that model
that have say 14,000 or more just for POM.


Matt

[Bill Hale]

Jeff > wrote in message >...
> Mark
> the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a
> Turbo Arrow always seem to have nothing but horror stories to say about it

The argument about looking at the owner's car is of course bogus.

Not only is it not too fancy, but it will be full of airplane parts
heading to or from the hangar.

And all the miles will be city.... only driven to the airport and
NAPA parts.

Bill Hale

[PInc972390]

> the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a

Would a Comanchie be a close alternative or an Arrow?

[James M. Knox]

Jeff > wrote in
:

> the turbo arrow has a TSIO-360-F or -FB engine, its only 200 HP, the
> FB being the preferred engine since it has the 1800 hour TBO and the
> cylinders do not crack as easy as the ones in the -F model engine did.

Is that true? I thought the F and FB used the same cylinders. It's the
"F" *case* (thinwall) that is prone to cracking. [IMHO, *ALL* TCM
cylinders are prone to cracking, and anything else that poor quality
control can cause. {:<(]

jmk

[Doug]

A turbo Arrow has THREE things that will be problematic. The engine,
the turbo and the gear.

Frankly, I would suggest you look at a fixed gear airplane with a
Lycoming 320, 360 or 540 engine, normally aspirated. Turbo's
overstress and overheat these air cooled small aircraft engines.
Turbos also break frequently. Want more power? Just get a bigger
normally aspirated engine. Retract gear is an enethema. I have seen so
many gear ups, about 1/2 and 1/2 on reason (forget and broke).

First plane? Cherokee if you want low wing, Cessna if you want high
wing. Fixed gear and Lycoming engine.

Just a few words of advice from a 5 year airplane owner.

As for far away inspections. Call a mechanic (NOT the owners
mechanic). Tell him you want him to spend TWO hours looking at the
plane. Have him do a compression test and look at the logs. Then have
him phone you with a report. The other stuff can be inspected by
anyone (usually). Ask the owner if everything works, condition of
upholstry paint etc. Do an appraisal on TAP's appraiser. This is the
asking price. Get the N number and have AOPA do a title search. Now if
all that checks out, you can go visit.

[Robert M. Gary]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> I assure you that I can accomplish all the above in an hour, and I'm
> not a Champ expert (though I have wrenched on them a bit). What's
> more, my experience is that 90% of the Champs for sale won't pass
> those tests. Most of the planes out there for sale are dogs - and
> that goes double if you're trying to get a 'deal.' If you pay for a
> full-blown prepurhase for each one, you will soon run out of money.

That's what caused me to give up the idea of buy a Champ as a second
airplane. I personally think most of them were airworthy but few
passed the FAA AD on the spar. A lot of A&Ps argue that the nails on
the spar were only there to hold it until the glue dries. In anycase,
the problem is finding an A&P to sign of your plane every year with a
non-AD compliant airplane. I did see some nice Champs, most of those
where in the $30K range.

-Robert