Turbo arrow vs. A36

Turbo arrow vs. A36

I currently fly the Arrow.  I'm thinking of moving up to a Bonanza.  Has anyone made the plunge and have any words of wisdom?

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Welllllllll....... I haven't made anybody on the forum mad in a few days, so here goes. I used to own a Cherokee and moved up to a Bonanza last year. I also have about 30 hours in a Turbo Arrow. The Bonanza is, in my opinion,  head and shoulders a better airplane than the Arrow. The construction is much better and I certainly appreciate the extra speed. I went from about 110 knots in my cherokee to 165 knots in the Bonanza. In defense of the Piper, I also went from 8 GPH to 16 GPH. I believe that most of the negative things that you will hear about the Beech will be about the cost of buying, operating, and maintaining it, with which I won't disagree. But, if you can afford it, you won't be sorry.
Good luck, Murf

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

As input you may want to reference a previous update " Piper vs. The Other Guys ", although some of the discussion compares to the Archer.  “The A36 Bonanza will fly faster, higher and smoother than the Archer. The A36 is a top performer in all aspects of single engine airframes. The airframe is heavier and is more stable in chop than the lighter Archer. “  I would interpret that your considered change may well be based on evolving needs, as I concur with your assessment with the A36 to be the move up to a different class of aircraft.  For my personal needs, my Turbo Arrow provides great payload, highly respectable performance, and is economically comfortable comparably (had to say it, sorry).  Best of fortune in your considerations,

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I own a 1977 Turbo Arrow.  Yesterday I went out to the hangar and sitting on the ramp in front of the hangar was a nice newer A36 and a Jaguar version to boot.  I looked at it and peered inside and thought of course this is a definate step up.  I researched the value and it was a 1999 A36 and would probably be in the 350K range.  Then I looked at my nice newly painted and freshly annualed, reliable Turbo Arrow sitting in the hangar with a value in the 80K-85K range and it looked much better.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Why not consider a turbo saratoga, or turbo lance? They're just as fast, have more useful load, burn the same amount of gas, and are substantially less expensive to own and operate?

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Mark, I think you are going to confuse a few people, you may have them believe a turbo arrow will only do 110 kts.

I recently moved up from a cherokee 180 to a Turbo Arrow III, last weekend I had it up to 168 kts TAS at 9500 ft indicated. My cherokee 180 would do 130 knots TAS.

I personally havnt flown in a bonanza yet, but I have been asked several times now to slow down while on long finales because of cessna's and cherokees ahead of me not moving fast enough. Kinda nice to finally be told to slow down instead of keep best possible speed or to do short approaches because the guys behind me was moving to fast.

On take off I am burning 18gph, cruise climb about 14+ and in cruise about 10-11gph.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Actually I saw the A36 in the controller for sale   $429,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

David,

Here is my take on that.  I own a 1979 T-Arrow IV that will give me 145-150 KTS TAS at any given day. I can, on a whim, drive to the T-hangar, pull out the Arrow, go fly and have fun at any given time, without feeling guilty and having to justify the cost.

I can plan a weekend trip to Santa Fe, San Antonio, Branson, Ruidoso and Pensacola wehenever I feel like it.  True, it might take me 20-30 minutes longer in the Arrow compared to the Bonanza, but the savings in the initial purchase and upkeep will pay for a lot of avgas, which, by the way, I consume at the rate of about 11.0 gal/hour.

The true question is this:
- If non of this matters to you, get the Bo. 
- If it does, then get the airplane you can actually fly and enjoy without having to ask yourself the question of: "Is it really worth to go do that?"

Remember what you feel when you go fly, and you will see that speed might not be the most important thing on your list.

Flying for 30 years and counting,

H.-P.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

David:

I fly a turbo-Arrow, and I have been wondering the same thing: move up to an A36 or B36TC? Before I bought the t-Arrow, I looked seriously at the A36 and B36 Bonanzas, and also a Seneca III. The turbo-Arrow fit the mission/cost profile I was looking for the best.

One thing about the A36....I would really miss the turbo. However, I now see that Tornado Alley Turbo has an STC for turbo-normalizing the A36, and even for converting the problem-prone B36TC.

However, I think the turbo-Arrow and 36 Bonanzas are different class airplanes. The turbo-Arrow is a great 2 person aircraft. But....try to stuff 4 people in it (+ baggage/oxygen/fuel) and it can't do the job. The 36 series Bonanzas are true 4 person airplanes. I think a 36 would be a great airplane, and I'd look very seriously at the turbo options available! If and when I upgrade, that is probably what it will be (or maybe a Cirrus, if they ever make a real 4 person turbo model)!

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

This thread is 4 years old.  David may in fact be flying Jet by now?

flyguydon
useravatar
Offline
1032 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I've driven Bonanzas before and love flying them, and I own a Turbo Arrow.  The difference here is that I can't afford a Bonanza - it's simply out of my reach.  If you add up the purchase price, maintenance costs, fuel costs and real property taxes (issue where I live), it's simply out of my reach.  I can live without the extra 30 knots, and the Bonanza doesn't have a greater range.  Personally, I'm in the camp that if I need an extra two seats, either a Saratoga, or possibly even a 210 might be my next choice.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

The TA III is only a 2 person plane? 

Don't tell that to mine.....I even flew last weekend on a resturant run with my 2 neighbors who had never flown in a small plane.  Wife and I and them, 52 gals(tabs), 99 deg F with a DA of about 3000' 50lbs under gross.  Of course I had long runways, but she flew like a jewel.  I took another trip with 3 of us and one back seat out and a full load of sound equipment.  Pretty much same conditions...I would have been a little more uneasy had I been on shorter runways, but the plane did it's thing beautifully. 

The person that I bought the TA III from got an A36 afterwards.  He has told me several times how he misses the turbo and how much is it eating him alive in costs.  I think he regrets it a little.

George Cumbee
Classic Aviation LLC
N20RN  Turbo Arrow III
Metro Flyers LLC
N10505 C150L
M30, KPAH

George Cumbee
useravatar
Offline
90 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I put 4 folks in my Arrow all the time, taking off in Florida with density altitude at over 2000'... 100 degrees out...  Sure, it may be a little over... but just put the fat ones up front and she climbs still at 800 FPM and never a doubt...

Perhaps I'd re-think this out of Denver...

Mine is not turbo.  Sometimes I wish it were, as beyond 8-9K you start out of the sweet spot for cruise... then, at other times I am glad to have the Lycoming engine as I hear of certain "things" about the Conti...

I have buddies in Bonanzas... and it seems the APs and shops see him (and especially his checkbook) coming.  The big Contis really like to sneeze cylinders (which aren't cheap).

flyguydon
useravatar
Offline
1032 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Here's my 2 cents.  The A36 is usually rated the No 1 airplane of all time.  I had a 78 T Arrow.  Nice but not a Bo.  Also, I will never own a plane without a glass cockpit from now on, so my next plane will be a 2005 Bo A36.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I LOOKED AND FLEW THE NEW TOGAS AND A36S THE TOGA IS VERRY MODERN AND WITH LOTS OF UPGRADES IN AND OUT HAS NOSE STORAGE AND CARRYS 30 GALS MORE FUEL AT 70 PERCENT TRUES OUT AT 168 KTS BUY THE TURBO AND ABOVE 12000 YOU WILL SEE 180 KTS  SO MY CHOICE WAS A 2002 SARATOGA HP WITH AFTER 1200 HRS HAVE NEVER LOOKED BACK MISSOURI TO KETCHACAN ALASKA ON TWO FUEL STOPS WHEN BEECH IS READY TO UPGRADE WITH MORE FUEL AND A MODERN LOOKING PLANE I WILL BE READY FOR ONE

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

toga smokes the a36

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Ok, I own a 78 Turbo Arrow III.  The only reason that I'm not flying an A/B 36TC is simply that I cannot afford it.  It is an entirely different class of aircraft and there is no comparison between the Bo and my Turbo Arrow.  The Bonanza wins in any comparison except cost.  My little turbo arrow does pretty well, bang for the buck, but it isn't comparable to the Bonanza.

Bill
N3543M
Green Bay, WI

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

why would beech only put a 70 gal of fuel on a plane burns 15-20 an hour

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I moved up from a Turbo Arrow and looked and flew T-210's-A36's and Turbo Saratogas.  They were all an easy transition and good steady platforms, I did like the turbo normalizing of the T210.  But after evaluating my needs compared to the purchase costs, cabin size, maintenance, the time on the airframes, I ended up purchasing the Saratoga.  The cabin interior is truly built for 6 and even though the cabin width slows the airspeed down a bit, you still get to where you are going fast with all of the luggage and accessories you can stow in either the front or rear compartments and you get there much more comfortably.  The turbulence that shook me up in the Arrow, is just felt as a slight bump in the Saratoga. With Turbo I am able to give myself plenty of altitude over the mountains with plenty of power to spare.

Ed
useravatar
Offline
37 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I owned an 1988 dakota for three years and then recently (200 hours flight time ago)jumped to a A36tc bonanza. I have flown saratogas (HP and TC) and Arrows and turbo arrows.WOW, what a plane the A36tc is. No comparison....Bonanza wins hands down!! On various trips to Colorado or to take advantage of strong tailwinds I can climb at 800-900 fpm to 16-17,000, true at 190 knots, put canulas on all of us and be happy with the built in oxygen. The stronger built (utility category) bonanza is apparent in all things. I have 74 gallons useful and will burn @ 19 gph (at 75 ROP). I Will be adding tip tanks to add 40 gallons and 350 pounds to useful load. I will then be able to load 6 and go for over four hours or have my family of four and bags and go for five hours.(bathroom needs excluded) The saratogas and arrows feel like plastic compared to the bonanza. Go with the bonanza if you can afford it. You won't be disappointed.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

william
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually I saw the A36 in the controller for sale
>  $429,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

looking at a 1978TArrow III ,$129k,2100tt,100smoh,speed mods,garmin530,fair or not,

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

An A36 is way out of my strike zone but I'd like to think there could be something in the Arrow or Dakota price range in my future. A nice mid sixties Bo (M or later) looks awfully attractive as an alternative for me. Any thoughts/comparisons? Would the nickels and dimes become more like C notes?

Steve C.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

I'm considering purchasing an early 80's fixed gear saratoga and am wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether the turbo engine makes sense.  I'm concerned about maintenance problems with the Toga's turbos (a local mechanic tells me it gets very expensive in light of the inferior exhaust system).  The same mechanic tells me that he's concerned with the safety of the Saratoga (compared to the A36) b/c the Saratoga is not nearly as well built and he'd rather put his family in the A36.  Thoughts?

Goberstein
useravatar
Offline
8 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

Goberstein Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm considering purchasing an early 80's fixed
> gear saratoga and am wondering if anyone has an
> opinion on whether the turbo engine makes sense.
> I'm concerned about maintenance problems with the
> Toga's turbos (a local mechanic tells me it gets
> very expensive in light of the inferior exhaust
> system).  The same mechanic tells me that he's
> concerned with the safety of the Saratoga
> (compared to the A36) b/c the Saratoga is not
> nearly as well built and he'd rather put his
> family in the A36.  Thoughts?


Depends on your mission.  Are most of your flights going to be over 9K? The benefits of the turbo will only be realized at or above 9k.  They are nice to have on high DA days as well....

Kurt Chambers
PA-28R-201T
N2114M

turbokurt
useravatar
Offline
35 Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Re: Turbo arrow vs. A36

>>  The same mechanic tells me that he's concerned with the safety of the Saratoga (compared to the A36) b/c the Saratoga is not nearly as well built and he'd rather put his family in the A36. Thoughts?

Well... nobody else chimed in so I will.  To me, this seems like a silly statement. 

a)  When planes go down, it's usually operator error.
b)  When it is a plane issue, usually it seems to be engine or engine systems - which Beech or Piper don't build anyway.

Beech does have a reputation for a more solidly built machine - but I can't say that I've heard many wings falling off of many Saratogas - unless the pilot is disoriented in IMC in which case a Beech may have some likelihood of plowing in in one piece rather than three.

The Beech may not leak, or have as many annoying bits of plastic that don't fit right.  But that's not a life and death issue.

Guest
Guest
useravatar
Offline
Posts
User info in posts
Only registered users or members can reply or post

Board Info

Board Stats:
 
Total Topics:
8309
Total Polls:
3
Total Posts:
785696
Total Posts Today:
1
User Info:
 
Total Users:
5236
Newest User:
tim@tqcp.com
Members Online:
1
Guests Online:
4754

Online: 
mckenna

Forum Legend:

 Topic
 New
 Locked
 Sticky
 Active
 New/Active
 New/Locked
 New Sticky
 Locked/Active
 Active/Sticky
 Sticky/Locked
 Sticky/Active/Locked