C182 vs Cherokee 6

I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.

On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
it?

thanks

John

john wrote:
I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.

On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
it?

thanks

John

What size engine in the Cherokee 6? 260 or 300? Generally
the 260 will net you about 135 Kts in a 6 at about 14G/hr.
(this can be imporoved at optimum altitude/power settings and leaning).

Either way its about a wash... (I am suprised you are getting 12gph
for the 182... the ones I've flown burn more than that). All
things being equal I'd rather have speed.

john wrote:
I recently got my high performance checkout and have taken a 182Q for
a couple of X-C flights. I love the ability to put four people in the
plane and still climb out at 500 ft/min at over 100 knots. If it
wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.

On both flights, the cruise speed was around 125 knots. Fuel burn was
around 12 gph. I can rent a Cherokee 6/260 for the same price ($95
dry). I doubt I would need the extra seats, but I was wondering what
the average cruise speed and fuel burn would be. I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) I know the Cherokee's larger engine should
mean a larger fuel burn, but would the additional speed make up for
it?

thanks

John

A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.


I think you've been overly optomistic with the speed figure for a Cherokee Six
with the 300 hp engine. I used to figure about 145-150 knots with a full load,
which is the only way I ever flew one. Your fuel figures are about right. The
sweet spot for the Six was between 6,000 - 8,000 feet.

Your 167 knots could be achieved with a Lance... which is just a Six with
retractable gear.

If the length of available runway was a factor there's no contest; take the
C-182. If load was the factor, take the Six. The PA-32 cabin in all its forms
is more spacious than the C-182s and basically if you can get the doors closed
with the load balanced correctly, it's gonna fly. The Six carries more than the
Lance, and the 260 HP version (oddly enough) has the greatest useful load of any
of them.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.


I think you've been overly optomistic with the speed figure for a Cherokee Six
with the 300 hp engine. I used to figure about 145-150 knots with a full load,
which is the only way I ever flew one. Your fuel figures are about right. The
sweet spot for the Six was between 6,000 - 8,000 feet.

When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.

john wrote:
I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .

This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
and mixture control than anything else. Since they have the same engine,
they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
(about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). If you fly one fast and
low, 9 gph is not unheard of. Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200801/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7e4f78808f995@uwe...
john wrote:
I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .

This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
and mixture control than anything else. Since they have the same engine,
they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
(about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). If you fly one fast
and
low, 9 gph is not unheard of. Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.


Back in 2001, I flew my 140 to Oshkosh along with 2 Warriors and 2 Skyhawks.
All had Lycomong O320 160HP engines. When we stopped for fuel, we all took
almost the exact same amount.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.


Had I known it was costing me 15-20 knots, I'd have made those other *******s
walk. G



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
When I was regularly flying a 300 it was usually me two pax. No extra
load. Probably about 650lbs total. AS was almost always just above 165.


Had I known it was costing me 15-20 knots, I'd have made those other *******s
walk. G





As well you should. I just remembered that the 300 I was flying did have
some speed mods so some of that 15-20 knot difference probably came from
there.

I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
that has anything to do with it.

On Jan 16, 2:21*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote:
john wrote:
*I have rented a
Cherokee 140 and the fuel burn was much higher than the C172 with the
same engine, (8-9 vs 6) .

* This is more a function of the pilot's choice in altitude, power setting
and mixture control than anything else. *Since they have the same engine,
they should burn about the same amount a fuel at identical power settings
(about 8gph at 75% power is normal for both types). * If you fly one fast and
low, 9 gph is not unheard of. *Slow and high, and 6 gph is doable.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1