Well:

The range on your 172 RG is 600nm according to
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane280.shtml

The turbine Bonanza burns 21GPH block speed to produce 190kts
http://justsaytheword.home.mindspring.com/articles.html

So the turbine Bonanza needs about 66 gallons to fly 600nm which weighs 444
lb. The piston A36 Bonanza has a useful load of 1400lbs
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...rplane98.shtml leaving 956lbs of
useful load on a 600nm flight which is roughly 50% more that your 172RG.
Presumably the turbine is lighter and the advantage is even greater.

I don't know if the 600mn range figure for the 172RG includes a reserve, but
even if it does, the Turbine Bonanza has significantly better payload over
ANY distance.

Mike
MU-2








"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"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