Narrowing it down... Comanche?

wrote in message
...
Douglas Paterson wrote:

[snip great engine info]


All that said, what you say is correct from my way of thinking. Just
because
you have the horses doesn't mean you need to use them all the time. If
you run a -250
at 55% rather than a -180 at 75%, it'll definately be happier for it. You
don't even
lose a whole lot of speed and you often gain quite a few percentage points
in fuel
economy.


That's the point I was trying to make--thanks for making it better than I
did....

Tire size and the overhead crank for the elevator trim is about all I can
think of that might be common between the two. They're completely
different
airframes.


OK, parts are not in common. However, if I'm an A&P, well-versed in working
on Cherokees, would I really be out of my element on Comanches? No doubt
there are sneaky problems that a Comanche specialist might catch (one of
many arguments to get a specialist in your type, I think), but for
run-of-the-mill inspections and repairs?

: I've asked on the Comanche boards, but I'll repeat it he anyone have
: climbout figures for the Comanche (or other models for comparison) at
: 10,000' DA (a common DA in the summer here, I'm told)?

That issue right there limits your decision more than most of the other
things
you mentioned. At least the Hershey-bar PA-28s tend to blow goats at high
DA. The
taper-wings are allegedly a bet better. If you're not willing to
sacrifice
significant load or runway flexibility, the PA-24-180 is definately out,
as would be
any PA-28 less than 235 that isn't turbocharged. I seem to recall climb
rate in a
friend's PA24-250 that was mid-range loaded (40 gallons on-board,
2-people, and 50 lbs
baggage) was about 400fpm at 12k. Only one datapoint I know, but a
*takeoff* at such
DA's would burn up a helluvalotta runway loaded.

I couldn't agree more about the importance of the climb issue. No doubt, on
the hottest, most humid day of July, I *will* have to sacrifice load and/or
runway flexibility, no mater what airplane I get--that's part of my
reasoning of *not* compromising on "book" S/L numbers. A strong climber
with large loads at S/L will, in general, outclimb an airplane that is a
mediocre climber with medium loads at S/L, for any given altitude--no? My
desire is 600 sm range in 4 hours or less, with fuel on board plus
reserves--that's around 60 gallons at 75% in a Comanche, according to the
numbers I'm finding. Leave 30 gallons on the ramp, that's one more person I
can take, or keep as an additional performance benefit, as dictated by the
day's mission. I know there will always be trade-offs--that's why I want to
start with "extra" capability, so as not to lose the basics just because of
my location.

Thanks for the pointers!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)