Piper?

In article , Jeff
wrote:

95 kts, now your pushing it down with a tomahawk
(I dont think I would have admitted to that)

It was an endurance exercise. :-))

Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.

At 5500 feet, running 23 squared, we can bank on 140 knots. Actually 142.

A previous owner put every known speed mod on our bird -- and a couple of
little "tweaks" here and there that certainly add a fraction of a knot or
two. He was a real hot-rodder (he now owns the King Comanche, the Comanche
400), and did everything he could to get the maximum out of this bird.

Of course, the flip-side of running at 23 squared is that we're burning
14-15 gph. But, oh, that sweet car gas burns SO much easier....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I'm usually running 23/21 or 23/20.5 Even if I ran 23 squared I'd still
only get maybe 130.




In article tMwkc.4114$Ik.345844@attbi_s53, says...

Are you getting 140 knots in cruise? I get 143mph (125 knots) at 65% and
about 11gph. I never run it over 65% in cruise.

At 5500 feet, running 23 squared, we can bank on 140 knots. Actually 142.

A previous owner put every known speed mod on our bird -- and a couple of
little "tweaks" here and there that certainly add a fraction of a knot or
two. He was a real hot-rodder (he now owns the King Comanche, the Comanche
400), and did everything he could to get the maximum out of this bird.

Of course, the flip-side of running at 23 squared is that we're burning
14-15 gph. But, oh, that sweet car gas burns SO much easier....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Book is 130kts for the -260. With the old engine, I flight-planned for 125kts block to block.
I'm finding with the new engine that I get pretty close to the 130 kts book. Right now it is in
the shop getting gap seals, mainly to improve the climb performance. Maybe I'll luck out and
get a couple knots from that as well. I do know of a guy with a -260 with the gap seals and
lasar ignition that gets about 140 kts in cruise.

I do think the -260 is more desirable, but to each his own. The -260 is carbureted, so the fuel
system is simpler. The engine is a little cheaper to overhaul, and a little more than 80% of
the fuel burn of the -300. The airplane is lighter, which means a greater useful load (but
don't push it when high and hot...which is why the gap seals).


Jeff wrote:

I had heard the six / 260 was the more desirable six to have, something about the 300 having
less useful load because of the bigger engine or something like that. Someone told me this
when I was looking at them before I got my arrow.

But 125 kts seems slow, thats what an Archer does I think.
the turbo arrow has a gross weight of 2900 lbs, about 500 lbs lighter then the six.I heard
the six was also very stable in turbulence.


--
--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

I'm usually running 23/21 or 23/20.5 Even if I ran 23 squared I'd still
only get maybe 130.

Well, put flap gap seals, aileron gap seals, stabilator gap seals, fancy
wheel pants, a faired landing light, cut down gas caps, a fuselage/wing
fairing, and a brand new engine in your bird, and you'll gain ten knots.

Oh, and take the beacon off your tail, too.

Is it worth it? Probably not -- heck, he probably spent $15K to get ten
knots. But I'm really, REALLY glad to have the speed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even GREATER
payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you would
have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.

I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
this very simple concept:

I think he was just pointing out we may not be comparing apples to
apples - take some of the Cessnas with long range tanks, they have
laughable "full fuel payload", yet they are obviously the more
flexible airplane next to an identical model that has 10-15 gallons
less capacity.

One can be flown by two people out & back to some distant place, the
other may not be able to. This is more important in the West and
Alaska, I suppose...

One can be flown by two people out & back to some distant place, the
other may not be able to. This is more important in the West and
Alaska, I suppose...

Right you are. And, as I pointed out, this is a fine line.

My rule is this: In a plane without a bathroom (or the ability to stand up)
a five hour range is probably the maximum desirable or necessary. Thus, in
order to gauge utility I start measuring useful load at the five hour fuel
capacity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Martin Kosina" wrote in message
om...
If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously
carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the
ground.
Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even
GREATER
payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you
would
have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.

I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot
understand
this very simple concept:

I think he was just pointing out we may not be comparing apples to
apples - take some of the Cessnas with long range tanks, they have
laughable "full fuel payload", yet they are obviously the more
flexible airplane next to an identical model that has 10-15 gallons
less capacity.