Piper?

[raj]

I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

Is new worth it if you can afford it?

thanks

Raj



*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[EDR]

In article >, raj
> wrote:

> I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> and what have you found?
> Is new worth it if you can afford it?

Get a Six X.
More seats, more load, more room, more speed, higher resale.

[Jeff]

the 6x is actually pretty slow, at least I was disappointed in its cruise
speed in the article I read about it. Also the insurance is ALLOT higher for
it then an archer because of the additional seats.

EDR wrote:

> In article >, raj
> > wrote:
>
> > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > and what have you found?
> > Is new worth it if you can afford it?
>
> Get a Six X.
> More seats, more load, more room, more speed, higher resale.

[Dude]

New is worth it if you can afford it and its worth it to you.

Especially if you can depreciate it.

I would strongly suggest that you first consider your mission with a few
people to ensure that the Archer is a good plane for you.

If the Archer meets your needs. I would also look at the Tiger and the
Diamond Star. I think Tiger will pay you cash if you buy the competitors
plane after looking at theirs. Also, the Diamond has a lot going for it for
not much more cash.

The Archer's big draw is the Piper step up program and available air
conditioning option.

You may even want to look at the new 182. It is much higher in cash, but
also has the a/c.





"raj" > wrote in message
...
> I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> and what have you found?
>
> Is new worth it if you can afford it?
>
> thanks
>
> Raj
>
>
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[CanadianPilot]

We owned a Archer few years back great plane to fly forgiving, cheap to
maintenance lots of after market part knowledgeable mechanic and popular for
resale.

For the new if you are in the state great with the new tax rules on
depreciation, here north of the border we don't have that luxury for new
plane so not that attractive. And the new Archer is the same as the Archer
II only the place of few buttons is different.

But one thing buy the best equipped one you will save money on the long run
because after few months you will want the extra.

Good luck in your search.

Andrew

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> New is worth it if you can afford it and its worth it to you.
>
> Especially if you can depreciate it.
>
> I would strongly suggest that you first consider your mission with a few
> people to ensure that the Archer is a good plane for you.
>
> If the Archer meets your needs. I would also look at the Tiger and the
> Diamond Star. I think Tiger will pay you cash if you buy the competitors
> plane after looking at theirs. Also, the Diamond has a lot going for it
for
> not much more cash.
>
> The Archer's big draw is the Piper step up program and available air
> conditioning option.
>
> You may even want to look at the new 182. It is much higher in cash, but
> also has the a/c.
>
>
>
>
>
> "raj" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > and what have you found?
> >
> > Is new worth it if you can afford it?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Raj
> >
> >
> >
> > *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> > Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
>
>

[Dave]

I have a Six-300 (70's vintage). the insurance is $1500/year for me,
a pilot with 50 hours in type, 700 Total and Comm/IFR rated. That's
also a hull value of $100K.

I don't find my cruise(about 140 KTAS) to be too slow, given the sheer
size and weight of the plane being propelled by a single 300hp engine.
If I applied some speed mods, new paint, etc. I might get a few more
knots.

Sure, a retract 6(a.k.a. Saratoga/Lance) would be nice and give a
little more. And, a Bonanza would give a lot more, but it's not
nearly as heavy an airframe, nor does it have the space. And, of
course, that's a much bigger insurance burden.

So, to answer your original question, the Archer has been refined and
honed over many years. It's as good a 4 seater as any. The 180hp
engine makes it easy to carry 4 adults and even some bags if you're
not all too heavy. But the Six makes it comfortable to carry 4 full
size adults, lots of bags, and still have room left over (for 2 more!)

Personally, moving from a 140(same cabin as a 180) to the Six was a
huge jump in space. I think the 140/180 fuselage is 40" interior
wide. The Six is 49". Now THAT'S wide. At least that's what she
said....when she got in. :)


Jeff > wrote in message >...
> the 6x is actually pretty slow, at least I was disappointed in its cruise
> speed in the article I read about it. Also the insurance is ALLOT higher for
> it then an archer because of the additional seats.
>
> EDR wrote:
>
> > In article >, raj
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > > and what have you found?
> > > Is new worth it if you can afford it?
> >
> > Get a Six X.
> > More seats, more load, more room, more speed, higher resale.

[Jay Honeck]

> I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> and what have you found?

If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
used Pathfinder or Dakota.

It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
available in a 4-seat aircraft.

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony]

I have got to say It but the Six 260-300 has one ugly wing. My dad
looked into buying one untill the comanche came along. I have flow a
1970's or 80's 181 and it is nice. Just like any old 4 fixed gear
excluding the 182 and higher

PA24-250 <---- cant get a better plane for the money

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Jeff]

I looked at cherokee 6's after selling my cherokee 180 and after the insurance company not
liking my original choice of upgrades (comanche 400), I had heard they were fast and could
carry a good load, The cruise speed, to me, seemed kinda slow, the useful was not what I
expected, so I settled with the turbo arrow, 150 KTAS at 65% power (14000 ft does around 165
ktas), with full fuel I can still carry 600 lbs.
cabin is allot smaller then the six tho. It was probably just my expectations, but I had
thought it was faster by the way people talked about it.

Dave wrote:

> I have a Six-300 (70's vintage). the insurance is $1500/year for me,
> a pilot with 50 hours in type, 700 Total and Comm/IFR rated. That's
> also a hull value of $100K.
>
> I don't find my cruise(about 140 KTAS) to be too slow, given the sheer
> size and weight of the plane being propelled by a single 300hp engine.
> If I applied some speed mods, new paint, etc. I might get a few more
> knots.
>
> Sure, a retract 6(a.k.a. Saratoga/Lance) would be nice and give a
> little more. And, a Bonanza would give a lot more, but it's not
> nearly as heavy an airframe, nor does it have the space. And, of
> course, that's a much bigger insurance burden.
>
> So, to answer your original question, the Archer has been refined and
> honed over many years. It's as good a 4 seater as any. The 180hp
> engine makes it easy to carry 4 adults and even some bags if you're
> not all too heavy. But the Six makes it comfortable to carry 4 full
> size adults, lots of bags, and still have room left over (for 2 more!)
>
> Personally, moving from a 140(same cabin as a 180) to the Six was a
> huge jump in space. I think the 140/180 fuselage is 40" interior
> wide. The Six is 49". Now THAT'S wide. At least that's what she
> said....when she got in. :)
>
> Jeff > wrote in message >...
> > the 6x is actually pretty slow, at least I was disappointed in its cruise
> > speed in the article I read about it. Also the insurance is ALLOT higher for
> > it then an archer because of the additional seats.
> >
> > EDR wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, raj
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > > > and what have you found?
> > > > Is new worth it if you can afford it?
> > >
> > > Get a Six X.
> > > More seats, more load, more room, more speed, higher resale.

[Jeff]

the 6 cylinder engines run nice and smooth compared to the 4 cylinder ones.
That was one thing I noticed fast about my arrow, its also something others,
who do not fly in 6 cylinder planes notice as soon as the engine starts.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > and what have you found?
>
> If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
> used Pathfinder or Dakota.
>
> It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
> an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
> a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
> available in a 4-seat aircraft.
>
> Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> the 6 cylinder engines run nice and smooth compared to the 4 cylinder
ones.
> That was one thing I noticed fast about my arrow, its also something
others,
> who do not fly in 6 cylinder planes notice as soon as the engine starts.

Yeah, it's definitely a different sound and feel. Now, when I go for a ride
in a 4-cylinder plane, the engine sounds really odd to my ears.

And you sure get spoiled with climb and speed in a hurry. Last time I rode
in a Warrior, it felt like we were standing still.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53>...
> > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> > and what have you found?
>
> If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
> used Pathfinder or Dakota.
>
> It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
> an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
> a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
> available in a 4-seat aircraft.
>
> Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.


For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

[Don Tuite]

On 27 Apr 2004 17:26:02 -0700, (Dave) wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53>...
>> > I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
>> > and what have you found?
>>
>> If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
>> used Pathfinder or Dakota.
>>
>> It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
>> an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
>> a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
>> available in a 4-seat aircraft.
>>
>> Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.
>
>For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
>appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
>more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
>the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
>vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

Oooo. This oughta be good!

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.
> >
> >For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
> >appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
> >more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
> >the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
> >vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.
>
> Oooo. This oughta be good!

I don't think you could find a "good" Six in that price range. "Decent"
maybe -- but not "a perfect 10" like our Pathfinder. You'd end up having
to put out some serious cash to raise that Six to the cosmetic and low-time
engine levels of our plane.

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.

The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
fuselage for no apparent reason.

That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
> 956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the

I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Mike Rapoport]

A lot of people seem to think this way and it doesn't make sense to me
either. MU-2s prior to the Marquise had 364 gallons usable. The Marquise
has 404 useable. Gross weight is the same and empty weight is about the
same. Nobody that owns a MU-2 would prefer the lower fuel capacity but the
piston guys talk about "full fuel payload" like it is the grail. I don't
get it.

Mike
MU-2


"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than
yours --
> > 956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
>
> I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
about
> your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
the 6's
> payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
don't
> know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
question.
>
> I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
about it
> as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
>

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> A lot of people seem to think this way and it doesn't make sense to me
> either. MU-2s prior to the Marquise had 364 gallons usable. The Marquise
> has 404 useable. Gross weight is the same and empty weight is about the
> same. Nobody that owns a MU-2 would prefer the lower fuel capacity but the
> piston guys talk about "full fuel payload" like it is the grail. I don't
> get it.

I understand the compromise between payload and range, but it's
different for little guys vs. big guys.

Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
gallons out of each of my tanks.

I know that's just one incident, similar things have happened to me at
other FBO's. When you have a plane whose fuel capacity is under 100
gallons, it's my experience that it's pretty difficult to get line
people at corporate FBOs to follow fueling instructions properly. Would
be much better if you could just have them top it off. Also I would
prefer to keep tanks topped off between flights because it cuts down on
water condensation in them (or so I was taught when I did my private)
and so I could keep them topped and not have to wait until I am about to
leave to fuel up beause I don't know until then how much gas I can
carry. The fuel truck is never around when you're ready to leave, y'know.

[Peter R.]

TTA Cherokee Driver ) wrote:

> Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
> tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
> instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
> gallons out of each of my tanks.

I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs." Of course, this does require
knowing how many gallons were burned during the previous flight.

--
Peter

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Peter R. wrote:

> TTA Cherokee Driver ) wrote:
>
>
>>Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
>>tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
>>instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
>>gallons out of each of my tanks.
>
>
> I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
> per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs." Of course, this does require
> knowing how many gallons were burned during the previous flight.
>

Agreed, see the thread I startd a few days ago asking about fuel dip
tubes for Piper Warriors :)

[Jay Honeck]

> I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
about
> your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
the 6's
> payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
don't
> know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
question.
>
> I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
about it
> as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
the Pathfinder.

If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even GREATER
payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you would
have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.

I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
this very simple concept:
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

Having a huge payload with full tanks just means your tanks are too small.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53...
> > I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
> about
> > your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
> the 6's
> > payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
> don't
> > know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
> question.
> >
> > I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
> about it
> > as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.
>
> Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
> aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
> the Pathfinder.
>
> If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
> that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
> Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even
GREATER
> payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you
would
> have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.
>
> I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
> this very simple concept:
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
>
> about
>
>>your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
>
> the 6's
>
>>payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
>
> don't
>
>>know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
>
> question.
>
>>I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
>
> about it
>
>>as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.
>
>
> Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
> aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
> the Pathfinder.
>
> If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
> that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
> Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even GREATER
> payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you would
> have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.
>
> I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
> this very simple concept:

OK, I guess we just have to continue to not understand one another. Still like
you, though. :-)

Dave

[Ben Jackson]

In article <SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
>aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
>the Pathfinder.

Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
> 30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
> them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
> non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?

'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the
only answer is "it depends"...

For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10
gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket
of warm spit.

Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
4-seat planes.

IMHO, of course! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TripFarmer]

Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings.......
.....


Trip

>Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
>956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
>difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
>I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
>year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.
>
>The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
>fuselage for no apparent reason.
>
>That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
>for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
>thing.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

The older Sixes have exactly the same fuel system as the -235...84 gallons in
four tanks. 25 gal each inboard tank, 17 gal in the fiberglass tip tanks. I
think the fuel burn for the PA32-260 is similar to the PA28-235 (14 gal per
hour). I have a 1556 lb useful load in my Six-260, or roughly 1050 lbs of
payload with full tanks. 1050 lbs in my case equals myself, the wife, 5 kids,
the dog and clothes for a weekend. From what I've been able to tell the trade
between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in the -235
in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The 49"
wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
passenger.

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
> > 30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
> > them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
> > non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?
>
> 'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the
> only answer is "it depends"...
>
> For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10
> gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket
> of warm spit.
>
> Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
> fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
> 4-seat planes.
>
> IMHO, of course! :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

--
--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

[Jay Honeck]

> From what I've been able to tell the trade
> between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in
the -235
> in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The
49"
> wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
> passenger.

Sure sounds nice, Ray. I would REALLY like the wider cabin.

Can you burn mogas? I figure during the life of my engine (2000 hours,
hopefully) I will have saved $28K in fuel costs alone -- more than enough to
pay for an overhaul, plus a nice avionics stack.

In your experience can you still find a cherry 260 for $80 - $120K? I
haven't looked for a while.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony]

Talking about fuel burn! In my Dads Comanche 250 I get 10 gal and hour
all the time. I pull the plugs out and ask my A&P and its still running
rich. We have0 90gals so get up too 10,500 thats about 8.5 hours. Well I
dont want to see what comes up at the Annual. But im sure it will do
fine. We cruise at 160-180 TASK. So its a very good plane and well worth
the money.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Kyler Laird]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
>aircraft.

So if I get tip tanks for my Aztec (which I'm considering right now) and
increase the amount of fuel I can carry by 44 gallons, the utility of my
plane goes *down*?!

>If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
>that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.

How much would you pay me for an STC that blocks off part of your fuel tank?

--kyler

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> I don't get it.

When your total fuel capacity is 43 gallons, you burn 9 gallons an hour, and it takes
you 3 hours to get past the DC ADIZ, you will understand.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Peter R." wrote:
>
> I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
> per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs."

Yes, this works very well.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Ray Andraka]

Sorry Jay, no Mogas. It requires 96 octane minimum.

I think you can find a nice one in that range if you go for the earlier years.
Aeroprice told me mine was worth $84K last summer with the recent overhaul but
crummy paint and interior. Mine is low time (3250 hours, average for a '65 last
summer was 6212 hrs), and is nicely equipped. The early ones tend to have a
higher useful load, mine is 1550 lbs.


Jay Honeck wrote:

> > From what I've been able to tell the trade
> > between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in
> the -235
> > in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The
> 49"
> > wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
> > passenger.
>
> Sure sounds nice, Ray. I would REALLY like the wider cabin.
>
> Can you burn mogas? I figure during the life of my engine (2000 hours,
> hopefully) I will have saved $28K in fuel costs alone -- more than enough to
> pay for an overhaul, plus a nice avionics stack.
>
> In your experience can you still find a cherry 260 for $80 - $120K? I
> haven't looked for a while.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

--
--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

[Jeff]

I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has around
6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has, did not look it up.
the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does have more
space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.

its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.

Dave Butler wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
> > 956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
>
> I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag about
> your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's the 6's
> payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I don't
> know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the question.
>
> I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk about it
> as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.
>
> Dave
> Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Ray Andraka]

The Six has 84 gallons of fuel. A -260 gets 14 GPH in cruise, which gives you about 5.5
hours including taxi, takeoff and climb to cruise to dry tanks. I flight plan 125kts,
although from what I've seen my Six is slow. The new engine seems faster, although I
have not finished recharacterizing it. I know of other -260s that get 130+ kts. Book
is 130 kts. A -300 burns 17 GPH in cruise, and gets a few more knots more speed. The
Six is slower because of the width of the cabin and the heavier airframe (3400 max
gross). Still, that elbow room will win you over!

Jeff wrote:

> I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has around
> 6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has, did not look it up.
> the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does have more
> space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.
>
> its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
> wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
> the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
> six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.
>
>

--
--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 Copeland]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:55:19 +0000, TripFarmer wrote:

> Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings.......
> ....
>

I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
enough through your motor.

Any truth to this?

[[email protected]]

On 28-Apr-2004, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
> fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
> 4-seat planes.




Jay, the issue that Mike (and others) are raising is not that your
Pathfinder is in any way short of perfection. You made the statement that
full fuel payload is a critical performance indicator. I (and I believe the
others) would argue that a vastly more useful metric is payload when fueled
for a given mission. For example, let's take a mission of a 500 nm (zero
wind) trip with a 1.5 hr (at normal cruise fuel consumption) reserve. This
would be a typical reserve requirement for an IFR flight when an alternate
is required on the flight plan. Now, if you put enough fuel in the tanks to
fly this mission, how much of the plane's useful load do you have left?
THAT'S the important metric! Of course, if your fuel capacity is too small
to fly the mission then you don't have a very practical IFR airplane,
regardless of its useful load, if you often want to fly 500 nm legs.

I find it hard to understand how having a greater fuel capacity (up to a
point, of course) can ever be a negative when it comes to maximizing the
capabilities of an airplane. Well, I suppose there is the idiot factor; if
your tanks are so small that you will never be over gross no matter how much
you cram into the cabin, then I guess the dinky fuel capacity might be
considered a safety feature :-)

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jeff]

I had heard the six / 260 was the more desirable six to have, something about the 300 having
less useful load because of the bigger engine or something like that. Someone told me this
when I was looking at them before I got my arrow.

But 125 kts seems slow, thats what an Archer does I think.
the turbo arrow has a gross weight of 2900 lbs, about 500 lbs lighter then the six.I heard
the six was also very stable in turbulence.


Ray Andraka wrote:

> The Six has 84 gallons of fuel. A -260 gets 14 GPH in cruise, which gives you about 5.5
> hours including taxi, takeoff and climb to cruise to dry tanks. I flight plan 125kts,
> although from what I've seen my Six is slow. The new engine seems faster, although I
> have not finished recharacterizing it. I know of other -260s that get 130+ kts. Book
> is 130 kts. A -300 burns 17 GPH in cruise, and gets a few more knots more speed. The
> Six is slower because of the width of the cabin and the heavier airframe (3400 max
> gross). Still, that elbow room will win you over!
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has around
> > 6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has, did not look it up.
> > the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does have more
> > space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.
> >
> > its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
> > wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
> > the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
> > six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.
> >
> >
>
> --
> --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

[EDR]

In article >, Jeff
> wrote:

> I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has
> around 6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has,
> did not look it up.
> the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does
> have more space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.

The Six-300 I fly:
- flight plan for 135 kts (guaranteed), can push to 140 kts
- fuel flow 15-16 gph (75% power) Gives me 5-6 hours total endurance.
This Six has a fuel totalizer and graphic engine monitor.
- I fly high MP, low RPM

At 10,500 MSL, I have flown LOP at 12 gph, but airspeed was only 95 kts.

[Jay Honeck]

> I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
> MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
> enough through your motor.
>
> Any truth to this?

No, on both counts.

Mogas runs cleaner (no lead deposits), for LESS maintenance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:30:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
>> MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
>> enough through your motor.
>>
>> Any truth to this?
>
>No, on both counts.
>
>Mogas runs cleaner (no lead deposits), for LESS maintenance.

Some engines still require a touch of lead, especially just after a
rebuild. The guy who fixed my bad exhaust valve told me to fly exclusively
on 100LL for the first fifty hours, and then use 100 LL every fourth
fillup. 100LL has four times the lead as the old 80/87.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, the issue that Mike (and others) are raising is not that your
> Pathfinder is in any way short of perfection.

It's far from perfection. But it's the best compromise I've found in a
4-place, normally aspirated plane.

>You made the statement that
> full fuel payload is a critical performance indicator. I (and I believe
the
> others) would argue that a vastly more useful metric is payload when
fueled
> for a given mission.

That's a good measure, too -- but more useful?

Using your criterion, my old Warrior was just as good as my Pathfinder,
since, heck, all I had to do was "fuel for my mission" and go. Why lug
around all that extra fuel?

Unfortunately, doing so would occasionally leave very little margin for
error, since we would have to leave 25 gallons on the ground to fly to OSH,
fully loaded.

The ability to carry 6 hours of fuel (84 gallons) *and* a big payload is
what makes the Pathfinder special. When we were able to fly from the Grand
Canyon to Carlsbad, NM, non-stop -- with four people and luggage for a
week -- I knew we had the right plane.

Now, of course, you can argue that it is rare that anyone would make such a
long duration flight (especially with 2 kids, and no potty!) -- and you'd be
right. But it sure is nice to have the ability to do so. That's what
having a large "full-fuel payload" is all about.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
> MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
> enough through your motor.
>
> Any truth to this?

Nope.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Mike Rapoport]

The issue is still range with a given payload or payload with a given range.

Mike
MU-2

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > I don't get it.
>
> When your total fuel capacity is 43 gallons, you burn 9 gallons an hour,
and it takes
> you 3 hours to get past the DC ADIZ, you will understand.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[TripFarmer]

Jay can probably speak to this better than I can since I've only owned this
plane (1/3 partnership) for 16 months. The other two partners have owned it
for 10 years each. It's a 1968 PA28 235C with 2900TT and 900SMOH. They have
run MOGAS (93 octane only) through it for years and have never had a problem.
We all have our own portable, filtered tanks/pumps but occasionally we have
to put 100LL in it when away from home. I've put 88 hours on it this past year
and I averaged 125 knots cruise (65%) with about 11-12 GPH burn. It uses
about one guart of oil every 10 hours. I save about $15.00 per hour from using
MOGAS.

OK........Jay.........your turn.......:o)


Trip




In article >, says...
>
>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:55:19 +0000, TripFarmer wrote:
>
>> Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings......
>.
>> ....
>>
>
>I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
>MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
>enough through your motor.
>
>Any truth to this?
>

[Tony]

In the Comanche I can get 3 of my friends in the plane and 90 gals of
fuel. I would have to land and put oil in before I would have to put gas
in.
(burns about 1qt every 4 hours. The plane sat for 3 years)
even got it up to 15,000, 500fpm all the way up there. So there is no
need to get a turbo unless you want to go into the FL's

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Jay Honeck]

> Some engines still require a touch of lead,

True.

But since we almost always have to buy Avgas when we refuel away from home,
we're always running a mix of unleaded and leaded.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jeff]

95 kts, now your pushing it down with a tomahawk :)

(I dont think I would have admitted to that) :)



EDR wrote:

> In article >, Jeff
> > wrote:
>
> > I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has
> > around 6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has,
> > did not look it up.
> > the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does
> > have more space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.
>
> The Six-300 I fly:
> - flight plan for 135 kts (guaranteed), can push to 140 kts
> - fuel flow 15-16 gph (75% power) Gives me 5-6 hours total endurance.
> This Six has a fuel totalizer and graphic engine monitor.
> - I fly high MP, low RPM
>
> At 10,500 MSL, I have flown LOP at 12 gph, but airspeed was only 95 kts.

[Jeff]

15,000 ft on a normally aspirated engine, what was your TAS - was probably
starting to dip down some?

at 14000 ft I was doing 165 ktas, at 17000 its supoose to do 172, ceiling is
20,000

but at 5000 ft my plane fly's like a normally aspirated arrow, around a slow
130-135 ktas.

Tony wrote:

> In the Comanche I can get 3 of my friends in the plane and 90 gals of
> fuel. I would have to land and put oil in before I would have to put gas
> in.
> (burns about 1qt every 4 hours. The plane sat for 3 years)
> even got it up to 15,000, 500fpm all the way up there. So there is no
> need to get a turbo unless you want to go into the FL's
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Jeff]

raj, since this went so far off topic and no one answered your question,
yes the archer is a very good plane. the engine can take allot of abuse
and not have any problems.

raj wrote:

> I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
> and what have you found?
>
> Is new worth it if you can afford it?
>
> thanks
>
> Raj
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:35:14 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> Some engines still require a touch of lead, especially just after a
> rebuild. The guy who fixed my bad exhaust valve told me to fly exclusively
> on 100LL for the first fifty hours, and then use 100 LL every fourth
> fillup. 100LL has four times the lead as the old 80/87.

Thanks guys! A followup question.

Not trying to start pointing the age stick, but, leaded fuel was pretty
well on its way out when I kid. As such, I've not had much experience
with leaded fuel. Exactly what is the lead helping with?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:05:54 -0500, Greg Copeland >
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:35:14 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> Some engines still require a touch of lead, especially just after a
>> rebuild. The guy who fixed my bad exhaust valve told me to fly exclusively
>> on 100LL for the first fifty hours, and then use 100 LL every fourth
>> fillup. 100LL has four times the lead as the old 80/87.
>
>Thanks guys! A followup question.
>
>Not trying to start pointing the age stick, but, leaded fuel was pretty
>well on its way out when I kid. As such, I've not had much experience
>with leaded fuel. Exactly what is the lead helping with?

IIRC from my valve repair, the lead coats stuff and acts as a lubricant.
The engines need it most in the early days, and once it builds up a bit
it's not as critical to keep adding more. When I had the exhaust valve
replaced, I spent a few bucks more and got the kind that isn't as critical
about having lead available. Doesn't help me with the other three,
though.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:39:09 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:05:54 -0500, Greg Copeland >
>>Not trying to start pointing the age stick, but, leaded fuel was pretty
>>well on its way out when I kid. As such, I've not had much experience
>>with leaded fuel. Exactly what is the lead helping with?
>
> IIRC from my valve repair, the lead coats stuff and acts as a lubricant.
> The engines need it most in the early days, and once it builds up a bit
> it's not as critical to keep adding more. When I had the exhaust valve
> replaced, I spent a few bucks more and got the kind that isn't as critical
> about having lead available. Doesn't help me with the other three,
> though.... :-)
>


Thanks.

[[email protected]]

Greg Copeland > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:35:14 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> > Some engines still require a touch of lead, especially just after a
> > rebuild. The guy who fixed my bad exhaust valve told me to fly exclusively
> > on 100LL for the first fifty hours, and then use 100 LL every fourth
> > fillup. 100LL has four times the lead as the old 80/87.

> Thanks guys! A followup question.

> Not trying to start pointing the age stick, but, leaded fuel was pretty
> well on its way out when I kid. As such, I've not had much experience
> with leaded fuel. Exactly what is the lead helping with?

It boosts octane and prevents (old) valves from microwelding to the (old)
valve seats. Modern valves and seats are made of stuff that doesn't
require lead.

There are limited (EPA approved) additives to boost the octane.

For more than you ever wanted to know about aviation fuel, see
http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/aviationfuel/

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On 29-Apr-2004, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Using your criterion, my old Warrior was just as good as my Pathfinder,
> since, heck, all I had to do was "fuel for my mission" and go. Why lug
> around all that extra fuel?

Are you telling me that, if each is fueled for a 500 nm IFR flight, your
Pathfinder has no more available payload than a Warrior? I don't believe
it! In fact, I am doubtful that the Warrior has the required range
regardless of payload.
>
> Unfortunately, doing so would occasionally leave very little margin for
> error, since we would have to leave 25 gallons on the ground to fly to
> OSH,
> fully loaded.

OK, once again here is the metric I suggest: Put just enough fuel in the
plane to fly 500 nm with 1.5 hrs normal cruise fuel reserve. Then, with
exactly that much fuel aboard, how many pounds of people and/or "stuff" can
you put in the cabin before you reach max gross weight?

Want an alternative, payload-centric metric? Here's one: Load the cabin
with 700 lbs of people and/or "stuff". Then put the amount of fuel in the
tanks that will bring you to max gross weight. How far can you then fly in
zero wind conditions with 1.5 hours fuel reserve?

>
> The ability to carry 6 hours of fuel (84 gallons) *and* a big payload is
> what makes the Pathfinder special. When we were able to fly from the
> Grand Canyon to Carlsbad, NM, non-stop -- with four people and luggage for
> a
> week -- I knew we had the right plane.
>
> Now, of course, you can argue that it is rare that anyone would make such
> a long duration flight (especially with 2 kids, and no potty!) -- and
> you'd
> be right. But it sure is nice to have the ability to do so. That's what
> having a large "full-fuel payload" is all about.

Long duration???? Straight-line distance GCN to CNM is only 448 nm! My
Arrow IV could make that flight with 1 hr VFR reserve carrying about 700 lbs
cabin load. That's easily two adults, two kids, and a pile of luggage

My Arrow could also easily fly from Billings, MT to Iowa City (779 nm)
nonstop with 1.5 hrs IFR reserve carrying about 525 lbs in the cabin. I
don't think your Pathfinder can do that. But it could, if it had bigger
tanks. So, maybe the Arrow is an even BETTER compromise?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> Exactly what is the lead helping with?

Tetraethyl lead does two things. It reduces the volatility of the fuel, thereby
boosting the anti-knock rating, and it cools and lubricates the valves. If you have
an auto engine that's designed to use, say, 100 octane fuel (no unleaded fuel is this
good), it can be detuned to run on, for example, 96 octane unleaded. If your valves
require leade fuel, they can be replaced with valves that can take the heat.
Lycoming, however, does recommend that leaded fuel be used for the first few hours
after overhaul.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Tony]

well i dont know what the true was but my GS was 125knts big headwind. I
was comming back with my day from KPUC from a dirtbike race that I did.
there was a PA28 at 14,000 picking up ICE. And I didnt want to mess with
that. My IAS was 140 mph (i would have to look and see what that is in
knts). I hear about Comanche 260 (non turbo) going up to FL200. I think
the SC is 20,600 or that might be on the 250. Never herd it on the radio
tho.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Jay Honeck]

> Want an alternative, payload-centric metric? Here's one: Load the cabin
> with 700 lbs of people and/or "stuff". Then put the amount of fuel in the
> tanks that will bring you to max gross weight. How far can you then fly
in
> zero wind conditions with 1.5 hours fuel reserve?

You seem to have made my point for me quite nicely. Thanks!

> Long duration???? Straight-line distance GCN to CNM is only 448 nm! My
> Arrow IV could make that flight with 1 hr VFR reserve carrying about 700
lbs
> cabin load. That's easily two adults, two kids, and a pile of luggage

Sorry -- I forgot to mention and include the 2+ hour sight-seeing flight
over the Canyon itself prior to setting off on the flight to CNM. My bad.

> My Arrow could also easily fly from Billings, MT to Iowa City (779 nm)
> nonstop with 1.5 hrs IFR reserve carrying about 525 lbs in the cabin. I
> don't think your Pathfinder can do that. But it could, if it had bigger
> tanks. So, maybe the Arrow is an even BETTER compromise?

Well, by my calculations that would require me to fly 5.5 hours (779 nm at
140 knots). At my usual 14 gph fuel burn, I'd have used only 77 (of my 84)
gallons, and landed with a 30 minute reserve.

In order to land with your specified 1.5 hour reserve, I'd have to fly high
and lean it back to around 12 gph. Since this would be over high terrain,
that's not difficult.

More importantly, I'd have been able to haul 956 pounds on the flight --
that's four 200 pound men, plus 156 pounds of luggage.

While your Arrow could make the distance, in order to carry the passengers,
you would have to make two trips.

Case closed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TripFarmer]

Jay,

Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.


Trip

In article <zrkkc.1036$0H1.181257@attbi_s54>, says...
>
>> Want an alternative, payload-centric metric? Here's one: Load the cabin
>> with 700 lbs of people and/or "stuff". Then put the amount of fuel in the
>> tanks that will bring you to max gross weight. How far can you then fly
>in
>> zero wind conditions with 1.5 hours fuel reserve?
>
>You seem to have made my point for me quite nicely. Thanks!
>
>> Long duration???? Straight-line distance GCN to CNM is only 448 nm! My
>> Arrow IV could make that flight with 1 hr VFR reserve carrying about 700
>lbs
>> cabin load. That's easily two adults, two kids, and a pile of luggage
>
>Sorry -- I forgot to mention and include the 2+ hour sight-seeing flight
>over the Canyon itself prior to setting off on the flight to CNM. My bad.
>
>> My Arrow could also easily fly from Billings, MT to Iowa City (779 nm)
>> nonstop with 1.5 hrs IFR reserve carrying about 525 lbs in the cabin. I
>> don't think your Pathfinder can do that. But it could, if it had bigger
>> tanks. So, maybe the Arrow is an even BETTER compromise?
>
>Well, by my calculations that would require me to fly 5.5 hours (779 nm at
>140 knots). At my usual 14 gph fuel burn, I'd have used only 77 (of my 84)
>gallons, and landed with a 30 minute reserve.
>
>In order to land with your specified 1.5 hour reserve, I'd have to fly high
>and lean it back to around 12 gph. Since this would be over high terrain,
>that's not difficult.
>
>More importantly, I'd have been able to haul 956 pounds on the flight --
>that's four 200 pound men, plus 156 pounds of luggage.
>
>While your Arrow could make the distance, in order to carry the passengers,
>you would have to make two trips.
>
>Case closed.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Newps]

"TripFarmer" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
> Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
> about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.

The 182 can do that trip too. Although I always run balls to the wall
unless I need to stretch it for some reason. I could stay up for 11 hours
if I survive the bladder explosion.

[Peter R.]

Newps ) wrote:

> "TripFarmer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jay,
> >
> > Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
> > about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.
>
> The 182 can do that trip too. Although I always run balls to the wall
> unless I need to stretch it for some reason. I could stay up for 11 hours
> if I survive the bladder explosion.

Eleven hours?? That would put most people in the COLON EXPLOSION zone.

--
Peter

[EDR]

In article >, Jeff
> wrote:

> 95 kts, now your pushing it down with a tomahawk :)
> (I dont think I would have admitted to that) :)

It was an endurance exercise. :-))

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
> about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.

At 5500 feet, running 23 squared, we can bank on 140 knots. Actually 142.

A previous owner put every known speed mod on our bird -- and a couple of
little "tweaks" here and there that certainly add a fraction of a knot or
two. He was a real hot-rodder (he now owns the King Comanche, the Comanche
400), and did everything he could to get the maximum out of this bird.

Of course, the flip-side of running at 23 squared is that we're burning
14-15 gph. But, oh, that sweet car gas burns SO much easier....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[TripFarmer]

I'm usually running 23/21 or 23/20.5 Even if I ran 23 squared I'd still
only get maybe 130.




In article <tMwkc.4114$Ik.345844@attbi_s53>, says...
>
>> Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
>> about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.
>
>At 5500 feet, running 23 squared, we can bank on 140 knots. Actually 142.
>
>A previous owner put every known speed mod on our bird -- and a couple of
>little "tweaks" here and there that certainly add a fraction of a knot or
>two. He was a real hot-rodder (he now owns the King Comanche, the Comanche
>400), and did everything he could to get the maximum out of this bird.
>
>Of course, the flip-side of running at 23 squared is that we're burning
>14-15 gph. But, oh, that sweet car gas burns SO much easier....
>
>;-)
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

Book is 130kts for the -260. With the old engine, I flight-planned for 125kts block to block.
I'm finding with the new engine that I get pretty close to the 130 kts book. Right now it is in
the shop getting gap seals, mainly to improve the climb performance. Maybe I'll luck out and
get a couple knots from that as well. I do know of a guy with a -260 with the gap seals and
lasar ignition that gets about 140 kts in cruise.

I do think the -260 is more desirable, but to each his own. The -260 is carbureted, so the fuel
system is simpler. The engine is a little cheaper to overhaul, and a little more than 80% of
the fuel burn of the -300. The airplane is lighter, which means a greater useful load (but
don't push it when high and hot...which is why the gap seals).


Jeff wrote:

> I had heard the six / 260 was the more desirable six to have, something about the 300 having
> less useful load because of the bigger engine or something like that. Someone told me this
> when I was looking at them before I got my arrow.
>
> But 125 kts seems slow, thats what an Archer does I think.
> the turbo arrow has a gross weight of 2900 lbs, about 500 lbs lighter then the six.I heard
> the six was also very stable in turbulence.
>

--
--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

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm usually running 23/21 or 23/20.5 Even if I ran 23 squared I'd still
> only get maybe 130.

Well, put flap gap seals, aileron gap seals, stabilator gap seals, fancy
wheel pants, a faired landing light, cut down gas caps, a fuselage/wing
fairing, and a brand new engine in your bird, and you'll gain ten knots.

Oh, and take the beacon off your tail, too.

Is it worth it? Probably not -- heck, he probably spent $15K to get ten
knots. But I'm really, REALLY glad to have the speed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Kosina]

> If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
> that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
> Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even GREATER
> payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you would
> have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.
>
> I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
> this very simple concept:

I think he was just pointing out we may not be comparing apples to
apples - take some of the Cessnas with long range tanks, they have
laughable "full fuel payload", yet they are obviously the more
flexible airplane next to an identical model that has 10-15 gallons
less capacity.

One can be flown by two people out & back to some distant place, the
other may not be able to. This is more important in the West and
Alaska, I suppose...

[Jay Honeck]

> One can be flown by two people out & back to some distant place, the
> other may not be able to. This is more important in the West and
> Alaska, I suppose...

Right you are. And, as I pointed out, this is a fine line.

My rule is this: In a plane without a bathroom (or the ability to stand up)
a five hour range is probably the maximum desirable or necessary. Thus, in
order to gauge utility I start measuring useful load at the five hour fuel
capacity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Martin Kosina" > wrote in message
om...
> > If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously
carry
> > that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the
ground.
> > Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even
GREATER
> > payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you
would
> > have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.
> >
> > I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot
understand
> > this very simple concept:
>
> I think he was just pointing out we may not be comparing apples to
> apples - take some of the Cessnas with long range tanks, they have
> laughable "full fuel payload", yet they are obviously the more
> flexible airplane next to an identical model that has 10-15 gallons
> less capacity.
>