Piper?

Jay, the issue that Mike (and others) are raising is not that your
Pathfinder is in any way short of perfection.

It's far from perfection. But it's the best compromise I've found in a
4-place, normally aspirated plane.

You made the statement that
full fuel payload is a critical performance indicator. I (and I believe
the
others) would argue that a vastly more useful metric is payload when
fueled
for a given mission.

That's a good measure, too -- but more useful?

Using your criterion, my old Warrior was just as good as my Pathfinder,
since, heck, all I had to do was "fuel for my mission" and go. Why lug
around all that extra fuel?

Unfortunately, doing so would occasionally leave very little margin for
error, since we would have to leave 25 gallons on the ground to fly to OSH,
fully loaded.

The ability to carry 6 hours of fuel (84 gallons) *and* a big payload is
what makes the Pathfinder special. When we were able to fly from the Grand
Canyon to Carlsbad, NM, non-stop -- with four people and luggage for a
week -- I knew we had the right plane.

Now, of course, you can argue that it is rare that anyone would make such a
long duration flight (especially with 2 kids, and no potty!) -- and you'd be
right. But it sure is nice to have the ability to do so. That's what
having a large "full-fuel payload" is all about.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Greg Copeland wrote:

I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
enough through your motor.

Any truth to this?

Nope.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

The issue is still range with a given payload or payload with a given range.

Mike
MU-2

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

I don't get it.

When your total fuel capacity is 43 gallons, you burn 9 gallons an hour,
and it takes
you 3 hours to get past the DC ADIZ, you will understand.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Jay can probably speak to this better than I can since I've only owned this
plane (1/3 partnership) for 16 months. The other two partners have owned it
for 10 years each. It's a 1968 PA28 235C with 2900TT and 900SMOH. They have
run MOGAS (93 octane only) through it for years and have never had a problem.
We all have our own portable, filtered tanks/pumps but occasionally we have
to put 100LL in it when away from home. I've put 88 hours on it this past year
and I averaged 125 knots cruise (65%) with about 11-12 GPH burn. It uses
about one guart of oil every 10 hours. I save about $15.00 per hour from using
MOGAS.

OK........Jay.........your turn.......)


Trip




In article , says...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:55:19 +0000, TripFarmer wrote:

Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings......
.
....


I've recently heard mumblings of noteworthy reduction in performance on
MOGAS and even rumors of increased maintenance requirements if you run
enough through your motor.

Any truth to this?

In the Comanche I can get 3 of my friends in the plane and 90 gals of
fuel. I would have to land and put oil in before I would have to put gas
in.
(burns about 1qt every 4 hours. The plane sat for 3 years)
even got it up to 15,000, 500fpm all the way up there. So there is no
need to get a turbo unless you want to go into the FL's

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

Some engines still require a touch of lead,

True.

But since we almost always have to buy Avgas when we refuel away from home,
we're always running a mix of unleaded and leaded.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

95 kts, now your pushing it down with a tomahawk

(I dont think I would have admitted to that)



EDR wrote:

In article , Jeff
wrote:

I read the cherokee 6 /300 has about 4.5 hours endurance, the turbo arrow has
around 6+ hours endurance, I do not know what a pathfinder has,
did not look it up.
the archer has about 5 hours I think with full fuel. granted the six does
have more space but you would think it would be faster then 140 KTAS.

The Six-300 I fly:
- flight plan for 135 kts (guaranteed), can push to 140 kts
- fuel flow 15-16 gph (75% power) Gives me 5-6 hours total endurance.
This Six has a fuel totalizer and graphic engine monitor.
- I fly high MP, low RPM

At 10,500 MSL, I have flown LOP at 12 gph, but airspeed was only 95 kts.

15,000 ft on a normally aspirated engine, what was your TAS - was probably
starting to dip down some?

at 14000 ft I was doing 165 ktas, at 17000 its supoose to do 172, ceiling is
20,000

but at 5000 ft my plane fly's like a normally aspirated arrow, around a slow
130-135 ktas.

Tony wrote:

In the Comanche I can get 3 of my friends in the plane and 90 gals of
fuel. I would have to land and put oil in before I would have to put gas
in.
(burns about 1qt every 4 hours. The plane sat for 3 years)
even got it up to 15,000, 500fpm all the way up there. So there is no
need to get a turbo unless you want to go into the FL's

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

raj, since this went so far off topic and no one answered your question,
yes the archer is a very good plane. the engine can take allot of abuse
and not have any problems.

raj wrote:

I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

Is new worth it if you can afford it?

thanks

Raj

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:35:14 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Some engines still require a touch of lead, especially just after a
rebuild. The guy who fixed my bad exhaust valve told me to fly exclusively
on 100LL for the first fifty hours, and then use 100 LL every fourth
fillup. 100LL has four times the lead as the old 80/87.

Thanks guys! A followup question.

Not trying to start pointing the age stick, but, leaded fuel was pretty
well on its way out when I kid. As such, I've not had much experience
with leaded fuel. Exactly what is the lead helping with?