Good Used 4 Seaters

"real_name" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Newps wrote:

Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
bird.

(fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

HUH, what???

: Apples and oranges. The six seaters are made with some pretty big gas
: tanks which provides a tremendous amount of flexibility. A better
: comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
: and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills your
: bird.
:
: (fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

: HUH, what???

What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily a
good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to compare payload
for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can hold 90
gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel payload" of
that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the speed is
similar.

Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B for
a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the big reasons
why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172. Having 50
gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of flexibility.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote in message
...
A better
: comparison is to fill the six seater with your max gas in the warrior
: and then do the comparison. You will then see the six seater kills
your
: bird.
:
: (fill with max gas in terms of range/endurance, not gallons).

: HUH, what???

What he's trying to say is that the "full fuel payload" is not necessarily
a
good metric to compare different aircraft. It's much more useful to
compare payload
for a specific mission. Some planes (like a friend's Piper Comanche) can
hold 90
gallons of fuel, while it only burns 12-14 gph. Comparing the "full fuel
payload" of
that aircraft to a 180 hp Mooney isn't a fair comparison, even though the
speed is
similar.

Now, consider how much payload can be carried in aircraft A vs. aircraft B
for
a 400nm cross-country flight. That's more fair. That's also one of the
big reasons
why we chose to get a PA-28-180 instead of a Cessna 150 or even a 172.
Having 50
gallons of fuel in a plane that burns 8.5 at 65% allows for lots of
flexibility.

-Cory

OK, I see that. I had misread, thinking he had said to fill both with "max
gas". :-)

Allen

[Much Great Advice Snipped...]

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. You've given me a lot to chew on...

Curt
--
"Captain Curt" Fennell