Piper?

"Peter R." wrote:

I have been successful in telling the FBO line guy/girl how many gallons
per side, rather than "fill it to the tabs."

Yes, this works very well.

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

Sorry Jay, no Mogas. It requires 96 octane minimum.

I think you can find a nice one in that range if you go for the earlier years.
Aeroprice told me mine was worth $84K last summer with the recent overhaul but
crummy paint and interior. Mine is low time (3250 hours, average for a '65 last
summer was 6212 hrs), and is nicely equipped. The early ones tend to have a
higher useful load, mine is 1550 lbs.


Jay Honeck wrote:

From what I've been able to tell the trade
between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in
the -235
in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The
49"
wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
passenger.

Sure sounds nice, Ray. I would REALLY like the wider cabin.

Can you burn mogas? I figure during the life of my engine (2000 hours,
hopefully) I will have saved $28K in fuel costs alone -- more than enough to
pay for an overhaul, plus a nice avionics stack.

In your experience can you still find a cherry 260 for $80 - $120K? I
haven't looked for a while.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

--
--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 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.

its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.

Dave Butler wrote:

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.

The Six has 84 gallons of fuel. A -260 gets 14 GPH in cruise, which gives you about 5.5
hours including taxi, takeoff and climb to cruise to dry tanks. I flight plan 125kts,
although from what I've seen my Six is slow. The new engine seems faster, although I
have not finished recharacterizing it. I know of other -260s that get 130+ kts. Book
is 130 kts. A -300 burns 17 GPH in cruise, and gets a few more knots more speed. The
Six is slower because of the width of the cabin and the heavier airframe (3400 max
gross). Still, that elbow room will win you over!

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.

its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.



--
--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

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?

On 28-Apr-2004, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
4-seat planes.




Jay, the issue that Mike (and others) are raising is not that your
Pathfinder is in any way short of perfection. 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. For example, let's take a mission of a 500 nm (zero
wind) trip with a 1.5 hr (at normal cruise fuel consumption) reserve. This
would be a typical reserve requirement for an IFR flight when an alternate
is required on the flight plan. Now, if you put enough fuel in the tanks to
fly this mission, how much of the plane's useful load do you have left?
THAT'S the important metric! Of course, if your fuel capacity is too small
to fly the mission then you don't have a very practical IFR airplane,
regardless of its useful load, if you often want to fly 500 nm legs.

I find it hard to understand how having a greater fuel capacity (up to a
point, of course) can ever be a negative when it comes to maximizing the
capabilities of an airplane. Well, I suppose there is the idiot factor; if
your tanks are so small that you will never be over gross no matter how much
you cram into the cabin, then I guess the dinky fuel capacity might be
considered a safety feature :-)

--
-Elliott Drucker

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 wrote:

The Six has 84 gallons of fuel. A -260 gets 14 GPH in cruise, which gives you about 5.5
hours including taxi, takeoff and climb to cruise to dry tanks. I flight plan 125kts,
although from what I've seen my Six is slow. The new engine seems faster, although I
have not finished recharacterizing it. I know of other -260s that get 130+ kts. Book
is 130 kts. A -300 burns 17 GPH in cruise, and gets a few more knots more speed. The
Six is slower because of the width of the cabin and the heavier airframe (3400 max
gross). Still, that elbow room will win you over!

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.

its like others have said, get the plane for your mission, for me, its just me the
wife and our 2 small dogs, she is comfortable because her seat lays down. So for us
the turbo arrow was just right, its faster then the 6, fly's farther then then the
six, and is comfortable for the 2 of us.



--
--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

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.

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?

No, on both counts.

Mogas runs cleaner (no lead deposits), for LESS maintenance.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:30:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
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?

No, on both counts.

Mogas runs cleaner (no lead deposits), for LESS maintenance.

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.

Ron Wanttaja