What about Brand "X"?

"Stu Gotts" wrote:

260 HP is "underpowered"?

HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies
are taking you.

?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Stu Gotts" wrote:

260 HP is "underpowered"?

HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies
are taking you.

?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

Compare the cabin. Compare the room of an Acura with a Civic.


On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Stu Gotts" wrote:

260 HP is "underpowered"?

HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies
are taking you.

?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor?

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.

In article , Stu Gotts wrote:

Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

Maybe I'm slow today, but I can't imagine what you meant to
write instead of "sicilian."

Thanks,

Mike Beede

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:04:44 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:

In article , Stu Gotts wrote:

Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

Maybe I'm slow today, but I can't imagine what you meant to
write instead of "sicilian."

Thanks,

Mike Beede

I totally screwed up on the whole thread, maybe the combination of
heroin, booze and wild women. That should have been similar, but
maybe the spell checker changed whatever I pecked out to Sicilian. Or
maybe it's secret code for the Cosa Nostra. Anyway, I need to back
out of the thread, I totally have not expressed what I meant to say.

"Stu Gotts" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:04:44 -0500, Mike Beede wrote:

In article , Stu Gotts
wrote:

Compare the climb and useful weight to a sicilian aircraft, say a
Bonanza with the same HP.

Maybe I'm slow today, but I can't imagine what you meant to
write instead of "sicilian."

Thanks,

Mike Beede

I totally screwed up on the whole thread, maybe the combination of
heroin, booze and wild women. That should have been similar, but
maybe the spell checker changed whatever I pecked out to Sicilian. Or
maybe it's secret code for the Cosa Nostra. Anyway, I need to back
out of the thread, I totally have not expressed what I meant to say.


Oh that's funny. I'm sure there were dozens of us scratching our heads over
that one!

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Stu Gotts" wrote:

260 HP is "underpowered"?

HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies
are taking you.

?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor?

260 HP vs. a 182RG's 235HP and it's UNDERPOWERED?

As you said...

Commanders are slower than comparable airplanes because they sacrifice
speed for roominess; their fuselage cross section is larger. It would
take a lot more horsepower to raise the cruise speed appreciably, at
the cost of range or payload.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

So the "it's underpowered" is BS.

"Tom S." writes:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Stu Gotts" wrote:

260 HP is "underpowered"?

HP isn't the factor. Look at the speeds those 260 ponies
are taking you.

?Huh? The airplane is underpowered but HP isn't the factor?

260 HP vs. a 182RG's 235HP and it's UNDERPOWERED?

How do the weights compare?

-jav

Javier Henderson wrote:

How do the weights compare?

Commander - 3260 lbs. Skylane - 2950 lbs. Weights are MGW.

George Patterson
A friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move
the body.

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Javier Henderson wrote:

How do the weights compare?

Commander - 3260 lbs. Skylane - 2950 lbs. Weights are MGW.


OK, so, about the same loading per hp, then.

I never heard of the Command 114 being underpowered. I think the 112 was,
though, but I could be wrong.

-jav