What about Brand "X"?

"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

Javier Henderson wrote:

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

Early 112s had 200 hp and weighed 2550 lbs. Later this was bumped to 210 hp
and 2950 lbs.

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

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 07:54:22 -0700, "Tom S." wrote:


"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?

UNDERPOWERED FOR THE AIRFRAME. 100 HP is more than enough for an
Ercoupe, but certainly not enough for a 210. Now stop this **** and
just admit the Commander (sans turbo) is a slowpoke!

"Stu Gotts" wrote:

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

UNDERPOWERED FOR THE AIRFRAME. 100 HP is
more than enough for an Ercoupe, but certainly not enough
for a 210. Now stop this **** and
just admit the Commander (sans turbo) is a slowpoke!


Of course it's a slowpoke, and we posted the reason. Enough horsepower
to gain speed to match an A36 would impair the overall utility of the
airplane.

Your statement that "HP isn't the factor" after calling the airplane
underpowered is still silly.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM