If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Having a huge payload with full tanks just means your tanks are too small.
Mike MU-2 "Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53... 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" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jay Honeck wrote: 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: OK, I guess we just have to continue to not understand one another. Still like you, though. :-) Dave |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In article SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53,
Jay Honeck wrote: 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. Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains, 30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler? -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler? 'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the only answer is "it depends"... For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10 gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket of warm spit. 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. IMHO, of course! :-) -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings.......
..... Trip 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" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The older Sixes have exactly the same fuel system as the -235...84 gallons in
four tanks. 25 gal each inboard tank, 17 gal in the fiberglass tip tanks. I think the fuel burn for the PA32-260 is similar to the PA28-235 (14 gal per hour). I have a 1556 lb useful load in my Six-260, or roughly 1050 lbs of payload with full tanks. 1050 lbs in my case equals myself, the wife, 5 kids, the dog and clothes for a weekend. 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. Jay Honeck wrote: Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains, 30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler? 'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the only answer is "it depends"... For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10 gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket of warm spit. 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. IMHO, of course! :-) -- 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 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Talking about fuel burn! In my Dads Comanche 250 I get 10 gal and hour
all the time. I pull the plugs out and ask my A&P and its still running rich. We have0 90gals so get up too 10,500 thats about 8.5 hours. Well I dont want to see what comes up at the Annual. But im sure it will do fine. We cruise at 160-180 TASK. So its a very good plane and well worth the money. *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com *** Add a newsgroup interface to your website today. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" writes:
Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any aircraft. So if I get tip tanks for my Aztec (which I'm considering right now) and increase the amount of fuel I can carry by 44 gallons, the utility of my plane goes *down*?! 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. How much would you pay me for an STC that blocks off part of your fuel tank? --kyler |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Piper J3 Cub Parts | BFC | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 24th 04 03:20 PM |
Piper 6.00x6 Nose wheel and fork? | mikem | Owning | 2 | March 6th 04 07:23 PM |
Piper 6.00x6 Nose Wheel and Fork? | mikem | General Aviation | 5 | March 5th 04 11:34 PM |
Piper Cub: "A Reflection in Time"... fine art print | highdesertexplorer | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 13th 04 03:47 AM |
The Piper Cubs That Weren't | Veeduber | Home Built | 5 | August 28th 03 04:38 AM |