Poll: best bird under $35K?

OSKI 3 wrote:
Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
still around, will outrun a 172, take off
in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
GPH.

And be totally useless because before you put any gas in the useful load
is less than 250 pounds. There was a magazine article on this 150/150
in the last couple of years. Nice idea but without a gross weight
increase it's useless.

Newps wrote in message ...
OSKI 3 wrote:
Here is my 2 cents worth. Why not get
a 150 or 152 with a 150/160 HP engine.
Throw in a taildragger mod. and you are
somewhere near $35K. Now you have the
most bullet proof cessna made, parts are
still around, will outrun a 172, take off
in a litle over 400 ft, land in the same
distance, all metal, and burn about 7 plus
GPH.

And be totally useless because before you put any gas in the useful load
is less than 250 pounds. There was a magazine article on this 150/150
in the last couple of years. Nice idea but without a gross weight
increase it's useless.

I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
the same size.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Galban wrote:

I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
the same size.

I would still agree with newps. The bigger engine weighs more and subtracts from
the useful load, which isn't very much to start with.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

John Galban wrote:
: I've flown one of these and the main drawback I saw was range. The
: bigger engine burns 1/3 more fuel than the original, but the tanks are
: the same size.

I never have bought that argument. Just because a plane has a bigger engine
doesn't mean you need to *use* it. Aside from additional weight or ridiculous
extremes (e.g. running a huge engine at 20% power or the like), bolting a larger
engine onto the same airframe doesn't have to cost you range. In fact, I'd argue in
some situations it'll gain you range. Consider that a 150 with an O-235 lycoming
would have more range than one with an O-200 continental... Run it at 65% rather than
75% and the higher compression will get you farther on the same amount of fuel.
You'll also spend less time in extra-bad fuel economy regions like climbout if you
climb faster.

I've got more range on my 180 HP O-360 than on a 150 HP O-320... provided I
don't run it at the same *percent* power... rather the same *absolute* power. Now,
with a 150/150, it might be bordering on wretched excess, so the weight increase may
skew the results a little bit. Still... it's not going to have inherently less range
except for the added 25-50 lbs the engine weighs.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Here is my 2 cents worth.

Should that not be 2¢ worth.

Should that not be 2¢ worth.

I have always wonderd. What has happened to the "¢" sign? Nobody uses it
any more and my computer doesn't even have one on its keyboard.

Lets start a move ment to bring back the ¢ sign.

¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢

Lets start a move ment to bring back the ¢ sign.

I'm not sure that makes ¢.

I'm not sure that makes ¢.


We are going two make a go around, you had to much power in. We are number too
two land after a Cessna.

Two, too. to and ¢ are never used Wright.

"WARREN1157" wrote in message ...
I'm not sure that makes ¢.


We are going two make a go around, you had to much power in. We are number too
two land after a Cessna.

Two, too. to and ¢ are never used Wright.

It's enough to make you loose your mind!