Piper?

the 6 cylinder engines run nice and smooth compared to the 4 cylinder
ones.
That was one thing I noticed fast about my arrow, its also something
others,
who do not fly in 6 cylinder planes notice as soon as the engine starts.

Yeah, it's definitely a different sound and feel. Now, when I go for a ride
in a 4-cylinder plane, the engine sounds really odd to my ears.

And you sure get spoiled with climb and speed in a hurry. Last time I rode
in a Warrior, it felt like we were standing still.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53...
I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
used Pathfinder or Dakota.

It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
available in a 4-seat aircraft.

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.


For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

On 27 Apr 2004 17:26:02 -0700, (Dave) wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:Raejc.42593$_L6.2638204@attbi_s53...
I am considering a new Piper Archer - anyone had experience with these
and what have you found?

If you are looking for an Archer, you would do well to search for a good,
used Pathfinder or Dakota.

It is basically an Archer airframe (with some substantial beefing-up) with
an O-540, 6 cylinder, 235 horsepower Lycoming engine. It will out-perform
a new Archer in every category, and has one of the largest useful loads
available in a 4-seat aircraft.

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.

For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

Oooo. This oughta be good!

Don

Best of all, it will run you "only" from $80 - $120K.

For that kind of money, you can find a decent 6 airframe. you'll
appreciate the extra space and same carrying capabilities(a little
more in some cases). My payload is about 900lbs (after full tanks) in
the 6-300. What I love more than anything about the PA-32 fuselage
vs. the PA-28 is the extra space. You will too.

Oooo. This oughta be good!

I don't think you could find a "good" Six in that price range. "Decent"
maybe -- but not "a perfect 10" like our Pathfinder. You'd end up having
to put out some serious cash to raise that Six to the cosmetic and low-time
engine levels of our plane.

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.

The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
fuselage for no apparent reason.

That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the

I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

A lot of people seem to think this way and it doesn't make sense to me
either. MU-2s prior to the Marquise had 364 gallons usable. The Marquise
has 404 useable. Gross weight is the same and empty weight is about the
same. Nobody that owns a MU-2 would prefer the lower fuel capacity but the
piston guys talk about "full fuel payload" like it is the grail. I don't
get it.

Mike
MU-2


"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than
yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the

I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

A lot of people seem to think this way and it doesn't make sense to me
either. MU-2s prior to the Marquise had 364 gallons usable. The Marquise
has 404 useable. Gross weight is the same and empty weight is about the
same. Nobody that owns a MU-2 would prefer the lower fuel capacity but the
piston guys talk about "full fuel payload" like it is the grail. I don't
get it.

I understand the compromise between payload and range, but it's
different for little guys vs. big guys.

Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
gallons out of each of my tanks.

I know that's just one incident, similar things have happened to me at
other FBO's. When you have a plane whose fuel capacity is under 100
gallons, it's my experience that it's pretty difficult to get line
people at corporate FBOs to follow fueling instructions properly. Would
be much better if you could just have them top it off. Also I would
prefer to keep tanks topped off between flights because it cuts down on
water condensation in them (or so I was taught when I did my private)
and so I could keep them topped and not have to wait until I am about to
leave to fuel up beause I don't know until then how much gas I can
carry. The fuel truck is never around when you're ready to leave, y'know.

TTA Cherokee Driver ) wrote:

Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
gallons out of each of my tanks.

I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs." Of course, this does require
knowing how many gallons were burned during the previous flight.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver ) wrote:


Taxi a Cherokee into Signature and ask for the tanks to be filled to the
tabs and see what you get. I sure wish I had more full fuel payload
instead of having to wait an extra hour for those clowns to drain 7
gallons out of each of my tanks.


I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs." Of course, this does require
knowing how many gallons were burned during the previous flight.


Agreed, see the thread I startd a few days ago asking about fuel dip
tubes for Piper Warriors

I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
the Pathfinder.

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