C Kingsbury wrote:
wrote in message
news:3aJAd.24094$h.20346@trnddc04...

On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods wrote:

Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as

long

as you remember to lower the gear for landing!


All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
(or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
rather than 12.


Matt