First Time Buyer - High Time Turbo Arrow

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

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

(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

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.

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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

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.

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

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

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?

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