Piper?

Having a huge payload with full tanks just means your tanks are too small.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53...
I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag
about
your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's
the 6's
payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I
don't
know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the
question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk
about it
as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.

Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
the Pathfinder.

If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even
GREATER
payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you
would
have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.

I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
this very simple concept:
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
I really like you Jay, but I fail to understand why you continue to brag

about

your payload with full fuel. That's just not a useful statistic. What's

the 6's

payload if it carries just enough fuel to match your full fuel range? I

don't

know the answer, I just think it's a more useful way of looking at the

question.

I know this has been pointed out before, and yet you continue to talk

about it

as if payload with full fuel is an interesting number.


Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
the Pathfinder.

If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.
Better yet, if you off-load some of that fuel, you can carry an even GREATER
payload. This gives you a far greater degree of flexibility than you would
have if you could NOT carry that payload with full tanks.

I really like you too, Dave -- but I fail to see why you cannot understand
this very simple concept:

OK, I guess we just have to continue to not understand one another. Still like
you, though. :-)

Dave

In article SiTjc.7120$lz5.843576@attbi_s53,
Jay Honeck wrote:
Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft. In fact, I would say that it was THE major reason we opted for
the Pathfinder.

Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?

'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the
only answer is "it depends"...

For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10
gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket
of warm spit.

Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
4-seat planes.

IMHO, of course! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay.....not to mention being able to use MOGAS in our 235. Hugh savings.......
.....


Trip

Amazingly, our payload with full tanks is actually a bit more than yours --
956 pounds. (I guess that's not surprising -- that's probably the
difference in airframe weight between the two birds.) While there are times
I long for the extra width of a Six, it really comes down to maybe twice a
year I wish I had the extra seats: Oshkosh, and Sun N Fun.

The other 150 hours we fly annually we'd be hauling around a lot of extra
fuselage for no apparent reason.

That said, IF you could find a terrific Six in the same price range, I'd go
for it. The flexibility of extra cargo and passenger capacity is a good
thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The older Sixes have exactly the same fuel system as the -235...84 gallons in
four tanks. 25 gal each inboard tank, 17 gal in the fiberglass tip tanks. I
think the fuel burn for the PA32-260 is similar to the PA28-235 (14 gal per
hour). I have a 1556 lb useful load in my Six-260, or roughly 1050 lbs of
payload with full tanks. 1050 lbs in my case equals myself, the wife, 5 kids,
the dog and clothes for a weekend. From what I've been able to tell the trade
between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in the -235
in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The 49"
wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
passenger.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Consider a Piper with aux tanks, like my Comanche. 56 gal mains,
30 gal aux. For many years the aux tanks were an option. Adding
them doesn't affect the W&B significantly, so does that make the
non-aux Comanche (with a higher full-fuel payload) a better hauler?

'Tis a delicate balance, isn't it? But it's a silly comparison, since the
only answer is "it depends"...

For example, if the Comanche had a 2200 pound useful load, but only 10
gallons of gas on board, obviously the "better hauler" ain't worth a bucket
of warm spit.

Luckily, the Pathfinder and Dakota have BOTH a huge payload AND the extra
fuel (84 gallons) -- which make them the best all-around compromise in
4-seat planes.

IMHO, of course! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

From what I've been able to tell the trade
between a PA32-260 and a PA28-235 is slightly higher cruise speed in
the -235
in exchange for elbow room, a second door, and two(or 3) extra seats. The
49"
wide cabin means you don't have to be best friends with the front seat
passenger.

Sure sounds nice, Ray. I would REALLY like the wider cabin.

Can you burn mogas? I figure during the life of my engine (2000 hours,
hopefully) I will have saved $28K in fuel costs alone -- more than enough to
pay for an overhaul, plus a nice avionics stack.

In your experience can you still find a cherry 260 for $80 - $120K? I
haven't looked for a while.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Talking about fuel burn! In my Dads Comanche 250 I get 10 gal and hour
all the time. I pull the plugs out and ask my A&P and its still running
rich. We have0 90gals so get up too 10,500 thats about 8.5 hours. Well I
dont want to see what comes up at the Annual. But im sure it will do
fine. We cruise at 160-180 TASK. So its a very good plane and well worth
the money.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Full fuel payload is a critical benchmark for measuring the utility of any
aircraft.

So if I get tip tanks for my Aztec (which I'm considering right now) and
increase the amount of fuel I can carry by 44 gallons, the utility of my
plane goes *down*?!

If you can carry a larger payload with full tanks, you can obviously carry
that weight farther than the poor guy who has to leave fuel on the ground.

How much would you pay me for an STC that blocks off part of your fuel tank?

--kyler

Mike Rapoport wrote:

I don't get it.

When your total fuel capacity is 43 gallons, you burn 9 gallons an hour, and it takes
you 3 hours to get past the DC ADIZ, you will understand.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.