View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 20th 06, 06:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Narrowing it down... Comanche?

Jay Honeck wrote:
2. Range. We carry 84 gallons of fuel, which gives us an incredible range.
The Comanche 250 carries 60 gallons, which gives it an okay range.


Hmmmm... well, what's your burn per hour in cruse Vs. the Comanche and
the fact that it takes less time to cover the same distance. My Comanche
has tip tanks (90 gals total) and I seldom use the tips unless I am
going somewhere that has expensive fuel. The thing is, with 90 gallons
I can fly for almost 6 hours covering almost 1000 Nautical miles....
I don't know about you but I'm ready to stretch my legs after 3 hours!

3. Maintenance. The Pathfinder wins here, hand's down. Both planes utilize
the Lycoming O-540, but the Pathfinder's is de-tuned to 235 horses. The
Comanche's is pushed a bit harder, running at 250 horses. We burn a bit
less fuel, and the engine (should, in a perfect world) last a bit longer.


They are both 2000 TBO, I'm not sure that makes a lot of difference. I'd
rather have the extra horses myself. Even at 250HP the O-540 is very
conservativley rated (compared to the Malibu engine for example)

All your other pros + cons are pretty much right on the money though.