- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2,105
- Display Name
Display name:
Scott@KTYR
PA32 Lance
Useful Load 1412#
143 kts True air speed
15 GHP burn
Useful Load 1412#
143 kts True air speed
15 GHP burn
Low-wing capable of carrying four adults?
- Thread starter brafter
- Start date
Hard to argue with that logic.
How does the Six handle? I imagine one advantage of its size is superior stability compared to something smaller? What about the tip tanks--how do they affect handling?
What power setting and airspeed do you get at that gph?
Thanks!
Chris Mitchell
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Display Name
Display name:
Chris Mitchell
Brian, the Six is a fairly heavy feeling aircraft and the heavier the load the heavier it feels on the controls (no surprise here, right?). Is this a bad thing? Not at all! To me it feels solid and well balanced and I certainly don't mind the larger airplane feel that it has. The "heaviness" and stability of the Six makes for a great IFR ship! Actually with a light load (me and 30 gallons or so of gas) it is fairly nimble and quite a bit more responsive on the controls vs when it's loaded with people, gas and bags. Now...go ask a BE35 driver about the flight control qualities of the PA32 and you will hear snickering and derogatory comments...but what do they know 
Regarding the tip tanks...this, while by no means a major issue, may be my least favorite aspect of the Six (same with the PA28-235, by the way...same wing and fuel tank setup). As stated in previous posts proper fuel management in the Six requires that you burn from the inboard tanks first then burn from the tip tanks. This is simple common sense as it reduces the stress on the center part of the wing spar. This becomes a slight issue in terms of lateral balance at the end of a long cross country as you will (or should) have empty inboard tanks and,almost inevitably, more fuel in one tip than the other. It's not necessarily a safety issue just a slight inconvenience as you hold the required control pressure to keep the plane wings level (assuming you don't have an autopilot, and I don't). Every plane has its idiosyncrasies and compromises and this one belongs to the early PA32s.
Power setting and speed at 10 gph? Approximately 21 squared and 115 kts. Slow...but then again blazing speed isn't the point of owning and flying a Six.
Regarding the tip tanks...this, while by no means a major issue, may be my least favorite aspect of the Six (same with the PA28-235, by the way...same wing and fuel tank setup). As stated in previous posts proper fuel management in the Six requires that you burn from the inboard tanks first then burn from the tip tanks. This is simple common sense as it reduces the stress on the center part of the wing spar. This becomes a slight issue in terms of lateral balance at the end of a long cross country as you will (or should) have empty inboard tanks and,almost inevitably, more fuel in one tip than the other. It's not necessarily a safety issue just a slight inconvenience as you hold the required control pressure to keep the plane wings level (assuming you don't have an autopilot, and I don't). Every plane has its idiosyncrasies and compromises and this one belongs to the early PA32s.
Power setting and speed at 10 gph? Approximately 21 squared and 115 kts. Slow...but then again blazing speed isn't the point of owning and flying a Six.
JHW
En-Route
i would suggest putting your fuel requirement in terms of miles rather than gallons or full/empty
for example, early comanche's could be had with 50 or 90 gal tanks. According to some people on the internet, a 50-gal version has better payload because it can carry more in the cabin with full tanks.
if an airplane truly can carry full seats and full tanks then it is a poor design. It needs more seats or more tanks
for example, early comanche's could be had with 50 or 90 gal tanks. According to some people on the internet, a 50-gal version has better payload because it can carry more in the cabin with full tanks.
if an airplane truly can carry full seats and full tanks then it is a poor design. It needs more seats or more tanks
Chris Mitchell
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Display Name
Display name:
Chris Mitchell
mswmsw
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 86
- Display Name
Display name:
mswmsw
I flew older models of the Cherokee Six for many years, and the four tank models never bothered me much. But if you think that the fuel management of the 4 tank models of the PA32 (which is most of them) would really bother you, then shop for a 1979 PA32. That year - which is the last year of the Cherokee Six before it evolved into the Saratoga - has a simplified fuel system with only a three position selector (Off-Left-Right) and just "two" tanks. I have owned a 1979 PA32–300 for almost 22 years. It has been a wonderful family airplane, one that my kids virtually grew up in, and was the airborne equivalent of our Chevy Suburban. Now that my kids are grown and gone, and rarely fly with us anymore, I still cannot get my wife to give up that huge, roomy cabin, for a smaller faster airplane. (And I have tried!) So I am now considering purchasing a Saratoga II TC, to keep the same big cabin, but get a little more speed and the altitude benefits of the turbocharging. (I fly mostly in the western USA.) I just have not convinced myself quite yet, that the 20 kts extra speed a Saratoga II TC would give me, and the little extra altitude capability, is worth the extra maintenance expense of turbocharging and retractable gear. I really do love my Cherokee Six.
Chris Mitchell
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Display Name
Display name:
Chris Mitchell
The only time the tip tank/lateral balance is an issue is on long flights which, by my own definition, is 4.5 to 5.5hrs. For flights less than 4.5hours or so you are barely into the tip tanks...so, no lateral balance issues. My fuel management technique is mostly to "blame" for any tip tank imbalance I get on long flights. To the extent possible, I prefere NOT to have my reserve fuel spread out in two or more tanks (in my mind too much risk of inadvertently running a tank dry when/if things get busy during an approach, missed approach, etc). So, I tend to consolidate my fuel into one tip tank...thus the imbalance. But again, no big deal...just part of flying the Six.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, it's not. In load-carrying capability, yes, but in comfort, not even close - The 182 is significantly wider in the cabin than the PA28's, and certainly longer than the -235. Better option would be a PA28-236 (Dakota) but still, whoever's in the back seat is not going to want to go on a long trip.
To the OP: What's your budget?
Even a late-70's Archer can carry the load you want easily. The one we have in our club has a 1006# useful load and carries 48 gallons of fuel, for about a 727# full fuel payload. That's enough for your 640 pounds of people and 87 pounds of bags.
Move up to an Arrow - You'll want an Arrow III for the longer fuselage (more back-seat room) and higher payload - And you'll be able to carry less, but go faster and farther. The Arrow III I used to fly had a 986# useful load and carried 72 gallons of fuel, for a full-fuel payload of only 567#.
In all of the PA28's, the back seaters aren't going to be very comfortable, so if you're planning on long trips you might want to look for a wide bird like a PA32. Insurance will cost you some there, and they're kinda piggish on fuel, but they'll do the job in comfort.
Jhernandez04
Line Up and Wait
I don't disagree but you can always scoot the seat forward which helps a lot. If I wanted luxury comfort, I'll just drive. That being said, it's not horrible in the 235.
Jhernandez04
Line Up and Wait
Hank S
En-Route
Why do you need "full fuel" with four people? Wouldn't time of flight be a more reasonable factor to screen out planes with?
For instance, my little 4-seater has carried four adult males [200,220,200,175], but I could only put 34 gallons in the tank, good for almost four hours at 140 knots. Deduct reserves and I could have flown the four of us for three hours and still exceeded required IFR reserves. I was more worried about the first takeoff, 3500' grass with ~23 gallons. No problem, though.
For your budget, you can get a nice Mooney M20-F, 200 hp, ~155 kts @ ~10 gph LOP. The people in the back seat will appreciate the extra space of an F/J compared to my C or an E. Something else to think about.
For instance, my little 4-seater has carried four adult males [200,220,200,175], but I could only put 34 gallons in the tank, good for almost four hours at 140 knots. Deduct reserves and I could have flown the four of us for three hours and still exceeded required IFR reserves. I was more worried about the first takeoff, 3500' grass with ~23 gallons. No problem, though.
For your budget, you can get a nice Mooney M20-F, 200 hp, ~155 kts @ ~10 gph LOP. The people in the back seat will appreciate the extra space of an F/J compared to my C or an E. Something else to think about.
Large fuel reserves is safety. Things happen. You have to divert. Weather. If you have the fuel to keep flying, and fly to where it is safe to land, that will help. Sometimes your fuel stop doesn't actually HAVE fuel available. If you have enough to make it somewhere else that is good. Also, its just plain easier to top it off. Personally, on cross country trips, I like 5 hours of fuel and I refuel after 4 hours or less. It has worked for me!
Look at some of the older Bonanza's starting with the C35 or better yet an H35 Bonanza. The H model has a 470 in it and is good on fuel, fast (150kts) and can haul 4 and fuel. The C35 like mine can do what the H can but maybe 5kts slower in cruise and it has the infamous "E" engine that takes a lot of TLC. The 0470 in the H35 is almost bullet proof. A good buddy of mine has an Arrow and I am faster than he is is and I have a lot more room inside.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Doggtyred
En-Route
May already have been mentioned..
Grumman AA5 series, preferably the AA5-B Tiger. I've flown 4 adults cross country. Speed rivals that of an Arrow, with less fuel burn.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Doggtyred
En-Route
Same engine, but burns less fuel.
If you are referring to a 180 hp arrow, then you have a point. But the Tiger will leave it behind.
A 200 hp arrow, versus a 180 hp Tiger, that will still keep up or pass the 200 hp arrow, well... you do the math. Fuel burn is in that class of engine is approx 0.45 lbs/hr/hp
Doggtyred
En-Route
The calculations for brake specific fuel consumption do not (and do not need to) account for adjustable pitch prop. It also doesn't account for airspeed, wind, weather, humidity or size of pilots ego.
0.45 lbs of fuel.. burned for each hp.. made every hour. A 200 hp engine will burn more than a 180 hp engine. The science is pretty solid on that point and not in dispute.
If you are skeptical of that, well, good luck with that.
Regarding other math, the Tiger with its fixed pitch prop and fixed gear will have lower overall operating costs than an Arrow due to decreased maintenance needs.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I guess that's why when I run at 2500rpm in the Comanche I burn exactly the same amount of fuel as when I run 2300rpm...
Oh wait, I don't. Silly me.
Stupid aircraft engineers putting on constant speed props for no good reason whatsoever. We should just run fixed pitch everything.
Oh wait, I don't. Silly me.
Stupid aircraft engineers putting on constant speed props for no good reason whatsoever. We should just run fixed pitch everything.
Last edited:
Doggtyred
En-Route
None of that has anything to do with the amount of fuel burned to generate a specified horsepower. I'm sorry you are struggling with this so much. Maybe you should ask an engineer.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
What horsepower are you developing at 2500 rpm? What about 2300 rpm? (Hint: It's not the same.)
There are many factors that effect engine power - MAP (more air ~ more power), RPM (more RPM ~ more power), mixture (best power is self-explanatory, we usually run leaner than that, thus, less power), and mag timing are probably the biggest ones.
Thrust adds the variables related to prop efficiency.
But, IIRC the Tiger is carbureted. The Arrow is fuel injected. That will give an edge to the Arrow that might make up for the 10% HP difference. I know that with an Archer (which I believe is the same engine as the Tiger) and an Arrow, I flight plan 10 gph either way. In the Diamond (IO-360 vs. the Archer's O-360, both at 180hp) I plan on 9 gph. Whether that's a result of the better instrumentation or the fuel injection, I do not know.
Also IME - Which is somewhat limited with the Tiger, but fairly extensive with the Arrow - Even a 180hp Arrow will keep up with a Tiger (once you suck the gear up at least), and even leave it behind.
JHW
En-Route
I'm an engineer who designs engines for a living so let me confirm that BSFC definitely changes with rpm. You also have prop efficiencies to consider, a fixed-pitch prop can only be optimized for one rpm/airspeed combination. To claim everything is constant with speed and constant speed props make no impact, is just silly
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
No need to. See Kent and Jeff's responses. I'm sorry you are struggling with the fact that not everything is static.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Exactly. Some people aren't smart enough to pick up on things. Not to mention that the ~10% difference in HP between the Arrows results in what a whopping 4kts difference in airspeed - all other things being equal?
Last edited:
Ehhhh, large fuel reserves are only safety over water or areas of the world with no support infrastructure like the Gobi Desert. Over the continental US, any fuel carried above minimum required is a fire/explosion hazard and a hindrance to load or performance. Airliners carry the bare minimum fuel for a reason. Normally I will top my tanks because normally I will fly the complete range of my tanks, fuel and go again. If you maintain the normal 30-45min reserves within the CONUS and land at an airport without fuel, you will have the fuel to get to another airport. If you don't, well then you failed as PIC before you ever got in the plane. What you really want is a fuel flow/totalizer preferably tied to your GPS, CORRECT INFORMATION, that is the foundation of safety.
Thanks all for the continued suggestions. Will look at the Mooney, Tiger, and Bonanza as well. I take your point about full fuel. At a minimum I'd like to be able to fly four average adults 3 hours or perhaps 3.5 hours with an hour of reserve left. Range/endurance beyond that is desirable (a nice luxury) but certainly not essential.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Assuming you mean a Mooney M20F or higher, all of those planes will do that mission unless your passengers are 200+ pounders. You won't be running full tanks, but you should be able to get enough in to do 3 hours +1 for reserve.
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hank S
En-Route
Hmmm, my Mooney C-model does that, and it's a long ways from an F. A good E should do the same or better, since it's injected and can run lean of peak; in fact, many E's cruise at 150+ knots on 8-8.5 gph; that's four hours' endurance [3 to fly + 1 hour reserve] on 34 gallons out of 52 available.
Fuel load is 34 x 6 = 204 lbs [for me, 36 x 6 = 222 lbs], which should easily leave 700 + lbs useful load [my plane would have 747 lbs. available, so I can carry my favorite 550+ pounds of friends with me].
Any Mooney in good shape can do this. F's and J's are longer, therefore heavier, and typically use more fuel, so they may come up short. My friends who fly F's typically run ~11 gph, but don't have much more useful load, meaning your friends must lose weight.
JHW
En-Route
depends on how the engine is set up. Your engine has an SFC island map that gives specific fuel consumption in terms of various parameters. You can probably find one on the internet or lycoming/continental publications.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
The M20C's backseat is tiny. Sat in one about a month ago. But if it works for you I've got no argument about it.
I was simply setting a baseline of needing >~950 pounds useful load with reasonable backseat legroom to be able to make it work. That's why I started with suggesting the F model, being it was when the stretch happened.
We hear of J's doing 160 knots on 8.5gph all the time on here. Was at my uncle's airport the other day and a M20F came in to refuel. He said he was getting 145 knots on 9gph that day.
Last edited:
rbridges
En-Route
Hank has done well getting people in his C model. For me, it's usually 2 up front and 1 in the back. I would consider an F or higher if you carry back seat passengers often. The extra 5 inches is very noticeable.
I have a carbureted mooney, but I know the guys that run LOP can get down pretty low on fuel flow and still pull 145-150 knots. 8.5 gph at 160 seems optimistic to me, but I don't have fuel injection.
rbridges
En-Route
not exactly what you're looking for, but this thread mentions some of the HP changes with RPM and MP.
http://mooneyspace.com/topic/12116-io-360-low-rpm-lop-cruise-power/
MSPAviator
Cleared for Takeoff
Mooney M20F or M20J model.
145+ knots for the F and 155+ knots for the J on 10 gallons per hour. Cruise climb at 120kt can yield +300-500fpm at gross. Start your descents from cruise altitude 30 or 40nm out under full power and go 180-200 knots at -300fpm in the descent. Give yourself about 5nm in level flight to slow down at about 15m.p. to 100knot downwind. 80kt. on base, and 71kt. on short final.
64 gallon tanks or 50 gallons at the tabs. 200hp, Lycoming IO-360 engine similar to the Arrow. You can carry less fuel and get more range because you have more speed.
Top loading baggage door makes it easy to fill the compartment all the way up to the top and I can fit a large Coleman cooler through the door. It is virtually impossible to get it out of W&B envelope as well.
Electric flaps & gear, dirt simple rubber shock donuts instead of oleo struts. Early F models had manual gear.
M20Js had better panels. I think in 1982+ the M20J model started coming with folding/reclining/removable back seats which are really nice to have.
Better front legroom in the Mooney vs. Piper.
The Mooney is a very different and in my opinion, much more rewarding plane to fly than a Piper Arrow. It's a pilot's airplane.
145+ knots for the F and 155+ knots for the J on 10 gallons per hour. Cruise climb at 120kt can yield +300-500fpm at gross. Start your descents from cruise altitude 30 or 40nm out under full power and go 180-200 knots at -300fpm in the descent. Give yourself about 5nm in level flight to slow down at about 15m.p. to 100knot downwind. 80kt. on base, and 71kt. on short final.
64 gallon tanks or 50 gallons at the tabs. 200hp, Lycoming IO-360 engine similar to the Arrow. You can carry less fuel and get more range because you have more speed.
Top loading baggage door makes it easy to fill the compartment all the way up to the top and I can fit a large Coleman cooler through the door. It is virtually impossible to get it out of W&B envelope as well.
Electric flaps & gear, dirt simple rubber shock donuts instead of oleo struts. Early F models had manual gear.
M20Js had better panels. I think in 1982+ the M20J model started coming with folding/reclining/removable back seats which are really nice to have.
Better front legroom in the Mooney vs. Piper.
The Mooney is a very different and in my opinion, much more rewarding plane to fly than a Piper Arrow. It's a pilot's airplane.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hmmm. I haven't been able to find it, and I can't even get a measly engine operator's manual from Continental because I have to "log in" (with no visible way to sign up) to get an electronic copy, and the web site to purchase a printed copy has a dead link in it.
Any pointers? IO-550-G, FWIW.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wow... I read that thread, and then read an older thread linked to in that one... Fascinating! That pointed me towards some software - Mac software, no less! - called Benchmark that looks like it'll really be fun for this AvGeek. There's a good article here too: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_pav/PAV.CAFE.Formula.Deriv.7.7.pdf
Ark235B
Pre-Flight
Chris Mitchell
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Display Name
Display name:
Chris Mitchell
Wrong.
I would say Ron is right. The turbo Saratoga's got pretty fat. A 1300 lb useful load with full fuel (102gal) would only leave 688lb for stuff and/or people.