PA32-260

[Greg Esres]

The Cherokee 6-260 has a shorter book takeoff roll than the -300. Any
suggestions as to why? The gross weight is the same. Props slightly
different.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Greg Esres > wrote:
>The Cherokee 6-260 has a shorter book takeoff roll than the -300. Any
>suggestions as to why? The gross weight is the same. Props slightly
>different.

Better test pilot that day?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Mike Rapoport]

Seems unlikely. What are you using for a data source?

Mike
MU-2


"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> The Cherokee 6-260 has a shorter book takeoff roll than the -300. Any
> suggestions as to why? The gross weight is the same. Props slightly
> different.

[Greg Esres]

<<Better test pilot that day?>>

That occurred to me as well. ;-)

[Greg Esres]

<<Seems unlikely. What are you using for a data source?>>

Nothing authoritative. I don't have the POH's. But a pilot of my
acquaintance first asserted the difference to me. He claims to have
researched the issue thoroughly before he bought his -260. He claims
that bush pilots prefer the -260 for that reason.

The only supporting evidence I have found is a web site that had
performance specs on the a/c and it validated what he said.

I agree that it seems unlikely, but I'd prefer to be able to show the
guy some data. Every now and then, something unlikely turns out to be
true. ;-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Esres wrote:
>
> The Cherokee 6-260 has a shorter book takeoff roll than the -300.

According to _The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes_, by Bill Clarke,
the takeoff roll for the 300 is 110' *shorter* than that of the 260. Since that's
what one would expect, I tend to believe him.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Greg Esres]

There seem to be a scattering of web sites that supply the same data.
I suspect they're using one common data source. However, I found one
web site that showed the -260 as a worse performer, as you would
expect. I'm going to see if I can acquire a -300 POH so I can compare
with my acquaintance's -260. Maybe whoever created the original
database used for the internet info got it wrong.

[Greg Esres]

<<Since that's what one would expect, I tend to believe him.>>

So do I. Thanks for that.

[Max T, CFI]

My really old copy of the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest shows the following T/O ground runs:
PA28-300 '73 and later 900'
PA28-300 '72 and earlier 1050'
PA28-260 '74-'78 1200'
PA28-260 '73 and earlier 740'

All four show a gross weight of 3400 lbs.
Max T, MCFI

Greg Esres > wrote in message ...
> The Cherokee 6-260 has a shorter book takeoff roll than the -300. Any
> suggestions as to why? The gross weight is the same. Props slightly
> different.

[John Godwin]

"Max T, CFI" > wrote in
news:Fl1Sb.138398$nt4.616428@attbi_s51:

> My really old copy of the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest shows the
> following T/O ground runs:
> PA28-300 '73 and later 900'
> PA28-300 '72 and earlier 1050'
> PA28-260 '74-'78 1200'
> PA28-260 '73 and earlier 740'

PA-28? ... did you mean PA-32?

--
John Godwin
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT from email address)

[Paul Sengupta]

Must have been a good headwind when they tested the '73 and
earlier 260!

Paul

"Max T, CFI" > wrote in message
news:Fl1Sb.138398$nt4.616428@attbi_s51...
> My really old copy of the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest shows the
following T/O ground runs:
> PA28-300 '73 and later 900'
> PA28-300 '72 and earlier 1050'
> PA28-260 '74-'78 1200'
> PA28-260 '73 and earlier 740'
>
> All four show a gross weight of 3400 lbs.
> Max T, MCFI

[Greg Esres]

<<PA32-260 '73 and earlier 740'>>

740 ft. is what the majority of web sources are showing for this
model. The one contrarian shows 1200.

Given the discrepancy between the -260 models, 740 ft must surely be
an error, unless there were a gross weight change.

Thanks for the info.

[Ray Andraka]

That looks like the landing distance, not the take-off roll. I don't
have my POH handy (it is in the plane), but as I recall the landing
distance in there is around 750' and the takeoff roll is around 1200'.
I've been able to get pretty close to that 750' landing distance on
several occasions. The 1200' take-off roll is not going to happen
unless everything is absolutely perfect, including your execution (and
even then, you may still need a headwind). My POH has listings for both
the 300 and the 260. I own a '65 260.

I prefer the 260 over the 300 because you have some 40 lbs more useful
load and 3 GPH lower fuel burn while giving up very little in terms of
airspeed, which gives you a greater range.

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<PA32-260 '73 and earlier 740'>>
>
> 740 ft. is what the majority of web sources are showing for this
> model. The one contrarian shows 1200.
>
> Given the discrepancy between the -260 models, 740 ft must surely be
> an error, unless there were a gross weight change.
>
> Thanks for the info.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Greg Esres]

<<That looks like the landing distance, not the take-off roll. >>

According to these websites, the landing distance is 630 or 640,
depending on the site. But the 740 could be a typo along with a
misreading.

Thanks for the data about your own airplane. My student bought the
-260 partially due to the reputed superior short field capability, so
he's not going to like what I have to tell him.

[Ray Andraka]

I would not call a 260 a short field airplane, at least not when it is
loaded up. A hot day at a 2300' near sea level strip with trees at the
end will get your attention (Laurel Suburban-W18 for example), even at
2900 lbs. IIRC, the book does have ground roll and distance to clear an
obstacle. You can shorten the ground roll somewhat by popping in 25
degrees flaps as you get close to Vso, which will get you off the ground,
but then you need to fly in ground effect for a while to accelerate to
Vx, otherwise you wind up back on the ground. In that scenario, I bet
you can get off the ground in that 740', but it ain't gonna help you
unless the obstacles are no taller than about 6" for the next 800' or so.

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<That looks like the landing distance, not the take-off roll. >>
>
> According to these websites, the landing distance is 630 or 640,
> depending on the site. But the 740 could be a typo along with a
> misreading.
>
> Thanks for the data about your own airplane. My student bought the
> -260 partially due to the reputed superior short field capability, so
> he's not going to like what I have to tell him.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Greg Esres]

My student ordered a new POH from Piper, but it includes NO
performance information, including no V-speeds. Any suggestions as to
how this could be?

[EDR]

In article >, Greg Esres
> wrote:

> My student ordered a new POH from Piper, but it includes NO
> performance information, including no V-speeds. Any suggestions as to
> how this could be?

What year?

What make/model?

[EDR]

In article >, Greg Esres
> wrote:

> My student ordered a new POH from Piper, but it includes NO
> performance information, including no V-speeds. Any suggestions as to
> how this could be?

Check it.
Piper tends to display information in chart form, found in the
PERFORMANCE section.

[EDR]

In article >, Greg Esres
> wrote:

> My student ordered a new POH from Piper, but it includes NO
> performance information, including no V-speeds. Any suggestions as to
> how this could be?

Information is found scattered throughout the manual.
Some things are found in NORMAL PROCEDURES, some in PERFORMANCE.
Yet others can only be found by thoroughly reading the entire manual.
Especially if they are in a NOTE or WARNING item.

[Greg Esres]

<<What year? What make/model?>>

PA32-260, not sure what year--'68 or thereabouts. I do see references
on the web to "B", "C", "D" models, but, according to the student,
that information is not available on the airplane. I checked the type
certificate, and it doesn't indicate the existence of anything other
than the plane ole -260.

<<Check it.>>

I will on Monday.

<<Piper tends to display information in chart form, found in the
PERFORMANCE section.>>

I have many Piper POH's, but none from the 60's.


Thanks.

[Ray Andraka]

The AFM for the really old Sixes is a set of 8.5x11 sheets with very
little useful info on it, I have that plus a POH from 1972 or 3 in my
'65. That POH is a 5.5x8.5 booklet about a quarter inch thick. It has
all the performance info and emergency procedures in it.

Greg Esres wrote:

> My student ordered a new POH from Piper, but it includes NO
> performance information, including no V-speeds. Any suggestions as to
> how this could be?

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Greg Esres]

<<I have that plus a POH from 1972 or 3 in my '65. That POH is a
5.5x8.5 booklet about a quarter inch thick. It has all the
performance info and emergency procedures in it.>>

Great, I'll pass that on to my student. Thanks!