Jim Carter wrote:
Steve,
For that to be true then the increase from engine weight and
associated accessories is greater than the pounds/horsepower of the 260.
Also, the gross weight increase of the aircraft has to be less than the
increase weight from the engine and accessories. I'm struggling to see
how that's possible -- but then I can't find my manuals either. If
someone has the figures for the 260 and the 300 circa 1972, I'd
appreciate seeing the data posted here for the gross weight and typical
useful loads.

I realize that was 35 years ago, but I was pretty sure the 300
could carry more then the 260.


The 260 and 300 both have the same max gross (3400 lbs). An identically
equipped 300 is some 80 lbs heavier, which gives the 260 the greater
useful load. My '65 -260 has a useful load of 1586 lbs. That said, the
-260 is not a short field machine when it is loaded up to gross. Not by
any stretch of the imagination.