Or your bladder is too large ;-) My Six will fly 5+ hours on full tanks, and
will carry my whole family(4 kids, with a 5th due next month), the dog and bags
for a few days without leaving any fuel behind (I have a 1555 lb useful load).
Since 3.5 hrs is about all any of the passengers, including the dog, can go
without crossing the legs, I can't imagine what I'd do with bigger tanks. I get
condensate in the gas if I don't keep the tanks full in the hangar, and it would
be a b*&$h to have to drain off fuel before going on a trip.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

For the @$&*^! time, who cares what the "full fuel" payload is? It is
totally meaningless.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 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.

Mike
MJ-2

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Viperdoc" wrote:
I had the opportunity to see the Bonanza conversion that was
featured in Plane and Pilot magazine this month-it now belongs
to a friend of mine. The plane is truly beautiful and immaculate,

Yep, it's beautiful all right, but the payload with full fuel is 360
lbs - nearly 300 lbs. less than my C172RG.

For equal costs, I would definitely consider a turbine Bonanza
a serious competitor for a new B-58 Baron, particularly...

...if you like flying alone, or only for short distances. I'd be very
interested to hear how an owner who's had one a few years uses the
airplane.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM



--
--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