Piper Turbo Arrow regular versus T-Tail take-off distance

[Cedric31]

Hey everbody!

I'm looking at purchasing a Turbo Arrow, and one of the reasons why I want to get into a turbo-charged aircraft is in order to be able to take off from relatively short strips even at very high DAs. The aircraft will be parked in Colorado and I'm currently also searching for hangaring opportunities. One very interesting field (low rates and hangars available) is at 6300ft altitude with only a 2800ft grass runway though. So I checked with the POHs and was surprised:
At these high elevation fields the Turbo Arrow IV (T-Tail) is supposed to have significantly shorter take-off distances that the regular tail Turbo Arrow III. This goes against all the conventional wisdom I have heard about Piper T-Tails. I always was under the impression that the t-tails are kind of runway hogs, but the data I can find says exactly the opposite.
I'll attach the POH data below, maybe some Turbo Arrow pilots can chime in and give me either real-world data they see with their airplanes or some different performance data out of their POHs that disproves what I'm seeing here.
One more thing to consider: The regular tail version can be equipped with VGs to further lower the take-off distance, the t-tail cannot (at least I couldn't find any kit).

Thanks for your help,
cheers!
Cedric

 

[flyingron]

The T tail takes a higher airspeed (and hence runway length) to raise the nose, but the T-Arrow is ready to rotate before you need to. Unless you're trying to protect the nosegear on a soft/rough surface, you don't want to try to raise it early. Keeping it down decreases drag while you are building up to rotation speed.

 

[dmspilot]

At sea level and standard temperature the takeoff distances are about equal. As density altitude increases they drift apart significantly. It's hard to believe the same engine, prop, and horsepower can accelerate the same weight so much faster in a T-tail Arrow where the only difference is the tail...I suspect the real world performance is similar and that one of these charts is inaccurate.

 

[Clip4]

Hey everbody!

I'm looking at purchasing a Turbo Arrow, and one of the reasons why I want to get into a turbo-charged aircraft is in order to be able to take off from relatively short strips even at very high DAs. The aircraft will be parked in Colorado and I'm currently also searching for hangaring opportunities. One very interesting field (low rates and hangars available) is at 6300ft altitude with only a 2800ft grass runway though. So I checked with the POHs and was surprised:
At these high elevation fields the Turbo Arrow IV (T-Tail) is supposed to have significantly shorter take-off distances that the regular tail Turbo Arrow III. This goes against all the conventional wisdom I have heard about Piper T-Tails. I always was under the impression that the t-tails are kind of runway hogs, but the data I can find says exactly the opposite.
I'll attach the POH data below, maybe some Turbo Arrow pilots can chime in and give me either real-world data they see with their airplanes or some different performance data out of their POHs that disproves what I'm seeing here.
One more thing to consider: The regular tail version can be equipped with VGs to further lower the take-off distance, the t-tail cannot (at least I couldn't find any kit).

Thanks for your help,
cheers!
Cedric

If you are going to operate off a 2800 ft grass strip in a Turbo Arrow at 6000 ft buy plenty of insurance - hull, liability and life.

 

[luvflyin]

Hey everbody!

I'm looking at purchasing a Turbo Arrow, and one of the reasons why I want to get into a turbo-charged aircraft is in order to be able to take off from relatively short strips even at very high DAs. The aircraft will be parked in Colorado and I'm currently also searching for hangaring opportunities. One very interesting field (low rates and hangars available) is at 6300ft altitude with only a 2800ft grass runway though. So I checked with the POHs and was surprised:
At these high elevation fields the Turbo Arrow IV (T-Tail) is supposed to have significantly shorter take-off distances that the regular tail Turbo Arrow III. This goes against all the conventional wisdom I have heard about Piper T-Tails. I always was under the impression that the t-tails are kind of runway hogs, but the data I can find says exactly the opposite.
I'll attach the POH data below, maybe some Turbo Arrow pilots can chime in and give me either real-world data they see with their airplanes or some different performance data out of their POHs that disproves what I'm seeing here.
One more thing to consider: The regular tail version can be equipped with VGs to further lower the take-off distance, the t-tail cannot (at least I couldn't find any kit).

Thanks for your help,
cheers!
Cedric

What other differences are there, if any, between the III and IV?

 

[Cedric31]

If you are going to operate off a 2800 ft grass strip in a Turbo Arrow at 6000 ft buy plenty of insurance - hull, liability and life.

What 4-seat airplane with 950lbs + useful load would you suggest for that mission? I was thinking of getting a C182 an putting an aftermarket supercharger on it, but prices for C182s are mad right now.

What other differences are there, if any, between the III and IV?

None that I'm aware of. Same MTOW, same engine, same wing, same prop.

At sea level and standard temperature the takeoff distances are about equal. As density altitude increases they drift apart significantly. It's hard to believe the same engine, prop, and horsepower can accelerate the same weight so much faster in a T-tail Arrow where the only difference is the tail...I suspect the real world performance is similar and that one of these charts is inaccurate.

Yes, that's exactly my thinking. Question is: which one is correct? That's where I'd like for some current T-Arrow pilots to chime in and share their experience.

 

[Albany Tom]

Consider, perhaps, that there may be a reason why there are low rates and hangers available.

I've not flown the T tail Arrow, but have the 3 and other PA-28's. In my opinion the PA-28 takeoff performance charts, from the 140's to the Arrow and Dakota, have little if any safety margin. My rough estimate is that adding 20% and rounding up to the next 100' is a safe number for pavement. Most of my flights are out of a 2500' paved runway at 700', below 85F, obstructed field.

What I've heard about the T-tail from pilots more experienced than I am is that the only issue is reduced tail authority during landing, if your cg or trim isn't right. So watch your cg and speeds on landing. I can't speak to why the charts for take off are different, except to say that some PA-28 POH's only have 0 flap charts, and some have 0 and 25 degree.

 

[Clip4]

The big issue with the T tail is the stabilator doesn’t become effective until about 50 knots and it’s unsuited for sod operations for that reason.

 

[NordicDave]

Anyone know why Piper switched to the T-Tail for the Arrow 4? Always seemed to be an advantage of the standard tail in slow flight to have prop wash over the elevators.

 

[dmspilot]

Anyone know why Piper switched to the T-Tail for the Arrow 4? Always seemed to be an advantage of the standard tail in slow flight to have prop wash over the elevators.

Same reason they made the Tomahawk with a T-tail. They wanted it to look cool.

 

[RussR]

Same reason they made the Tomahawk with a T-tail. They wanted it to look cool.

And the Lance, and the Seminole... there was a rash of T-tail designs from Piper in the 70's. Made it look like a mini airliner, I suppose.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The big issue with the T tail is the stabilator doesn’t become effective until about 50 knots and it’s unsuited for sod operations for that reason.

I would say it’s unsuited for soft or rough fields, but sod isn’t necessarily either of those.

 

[RussR]

I did some quick research on Wikipedia about the T-tails, and found it interesting.

The Seminole, Tomahawk, and Lance ALL came out in 1978. The T-tail Arrow IV came out in 1979.

Yes, I'd say 1978 was the "Year of the T-Tail".

 

[Clip4]

I would say it’s unsuited for soft or rough fields, but sod isn’t necessarily either of those.

It could be depending on the runway drainage, recent precipitation and runway maintenance. Even if it doesn’t get rutted, just an ignored sod surface can get pretty damn rough.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It could be depending on the runway drainage, recent precipitation and runway maintenance. Even if it doesn’t get rutted, just an ignored sod surface can get pretty damn rough.

So can a paved surface.

but we agree…that’s all that matters.

 

[flyingron]

So can a paved surface.

Yep, there are a few airports where you have to mow the paved runway at times too

 

[Pilawt]

I did some quick research on Wikipedia about the T-tails, and found it interesting.

The Seminole, Tomahawk, and Lance ALL came out in 1978. The T-tail Arrow IV came out in 1979.

Yes, I'd say 1978 was the "Year of the T-Tail".

1979 also blessed us with the Beech Model 76 Duchess and Model 77 Skipper.

And there could have been more ...

 

[NordicDave]

After reading A few of the ideas around why the detail was introduced for these small GA aircraft… I’m wondering if the actual reason has something to do with avoidance of hangar rash. Most instances I’ve seen of hang a rash are to the horizontal stabilizer with a close argument made for the wingtips.

I better understand the notion of a T tail when the propulsion system is a turbo prop or a jet, desiring clean airflow over the elevator. Seems to make sense having a high tail in these situation’s.

 

[hindsight2020]

It was a marketing gimmick. It fell out of favor quickly as the performance hits when low and slow were quickly discovered. The market responded.

The POHs from piper are good for heating combustible, but not much else. These are the same jackwagons that publish a tsio360 fixed waste gate installation power table with CONSTANT manifold pressure values all the way to the critical altitude. *Kaboom* *melts*. Yikes. Lol.

The answer is the low tail numbers are closer to the truth, and the t tail takeoff roll performance assuming the same cg is demonstrably worse due to the higher airspeed to elevator pitch authority. Caveat emptor.

 

[Pilawt]

Looking at all the aerodynamic gimmicks on the Arrow IV's stabilator -- fillets, slots, fences -- makes me think that Piper engineers had a heckuva time getting this thing to fly right.

 

[Pilawt]

the t tail takeoff roll performance assuming the same cg is demonstrably worse due to the higher airspeed to elevator pitch authority. Caveat emptor.

Arrow IV stabilator is two feet shorter in span than the low-tail version, and it's outside the energized prop blast on takeoff. So yes, pitch authority is noticeably less on rotation, and during the flare and rollout on landing. But as soon as you rotate on takeoff, the stabilator encounters the prop blast and suddenly becomes very responsive. Thus the nose bobs up and down a little bit just after liftoff when flown by a pilot new to the T-tail. Once you get used to it, it's fine -- just different. In ~150 hours in rented Turbo Arrow IVs, it was my sense that it had more of a tail-wag in turbulence than did the low-tail models.