"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is?

I do, if I'm considering a turbine Bonanza.

It is totally meaningless.

Not in an airplane that has to have tip tanks added to give it practical
range.

What matters is the payload with enough fuel to fly the
same mission. This may be the same thing in your example
with the 172 and Turbo Bonanza...

Which is why I brought it up.

but the notion of "full fuel payload" is one of my pet peeves.
If the plane can carry more than one pilot with full fuel,
then the tanks are too small.

So Cessna should have put 138 gal. tanks in Cutlass RGs?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM