Well if Guy hasn't learned what his next airplane is, he sure has learned how to start a wildfire on Beechtalk

3 hours in the 58P running 30 gph LOP goes way farther than 3 hours in an A36 running at 10gph. Apples to apples for a trip is by miles, not time. Make the same distance (plus an hour's reserve), and the 58P has same/more useful load for that 450-500nm trip.

I'm sure you're right Jim. I don't have first hand knowledge of the LOP fuel burn of a 58P, but 15 GPH per side seems low to me. I'd think it'd be closer to 17-18 GPH. But even at those fuel burns, and accounting for the speed advantage of the 58 getting one there faster, I think we'd find that on most trip distance scenarios the weight carrying advantage of the 58 is small, when using an A36 with a 1300+# UL. But I've only done the math in my head, and with a glass of Glenlivit in hand, so my math skills are, uh, compromised at the moment.

Leave it to me to start a wildfire! Love Beechtalk. I can talk planes all day. Watch YouTube random plane videos. I study trade a plane like. Job. Good stuff

15 gph in a typical 7.5:1 compression TC engine will generate 205 hp (15 * 13.7) which is 63% of 325 hp. 18gph LOP would be 76% power.

Let's say the A36 runs 12.6 gph LOP (63%power, 8.5:1 compression) at 170 kts. The 58P runs 200 kts on 30 gph. The A36 has a UL of 1300, the 58P has an UL of 1850. Subtract an hour reserve and the A36 has 1225 to use, the 58P 1670.

For a 200nm trip, the A36 uses 15 gallons/90 lbs and could take 1135 in the cabin. The 58P uses 30/180 and could take 1490. For 400nm the A36 uses 30g/180lb and has available payload of 1045; the 58P uses 60/360 and could take 1310. For 600nm, the A36 uses 44g/265 lbs leaving a cabin payload of 960 lbs; the 58p uses 90/540 and has 1130 payload. At 1000 nm, the A36 uses 73g/441lb, leaving 784 lb. The 58 p finally falls behind, burning 150g/900lb with a cabin payload of 770lb.

Futz with the assumptions a bit and the results change slightly ... but for flights within the bladder range of a family, the 58P can haul meaningfully more than a 36.

Guy- We are starting to ramble here on BT.. What's the decision ?

N2271L is very happy at 15 gph/side, or even a little bit less; I almost never fly it over 16.2 gph/side in cruise or climb.

Charles' numbers are a little bit optimistic, only in the sense that very few people are going to launch their 58P with only 60 gallons on board on a regular basis, but (IMO) it's definitely the case that the 58P gives you some useful load and very useful cubes over a 36.

A lot of people just quickly glance at "full fuel payload" and conclude that twins carry less payload for short trips, too. One of the hardest things for me to get used to in transitioning from the 182 to the 58P was regularly departing with partial tanks. The 182 almost always left with full tanks (78 usable) and rarely with less than half. That's not a good plan on the 58P (or on an airplane with very large fuel tanks).

Our engine ops in the TN A-36 were very close to those of the P-baron only twice
Takeoff and climb was high 20s to low 30s GPH to keep CHTs reasonable. Cruise was usually just over 16 for high speed cruise. We went well past TBO on both those planes but each had top cylinder work. The baron had higher MP limits. The A-36 was turbo normalized, so, MP was limited to around sea level pressure.
Of course, the P-baron had a lot of systems the A-36 didn't. I usually flew in the low flight levels in each and the nose straws and masks in the A-36 got old: passengers certainly didn't like them. I flew above large systems with low ceilings below in the A-36 and always worried about how I'd deal with an engine out situation. The Baron also had good anti/deice systems and that allowed me to climb through or descend down though some icing situations I couldn't deal with in the A-36. I was also legal to launch with icing was forecast. I believe the placard on our plane said the plane could not be flown into existing icing conditions. So, one couldn't launch in those conditions, but it was reasonably capable if one encountered limited icing in route or at the destination.
Of course the King Air is FIKI.

Well I apologize for any rambling, only tying to learn from everyone's real world experience. For the next few years I am going to stay in my A36. After that I will either move to a Malibu or maybe a p baron. I think the 300/400 series cessnas will require more time and money on maintenance then I am comfortable with.

Well Guy, apparently someone doesn't like your plan. C'mon dude, when we take the time and effort to opine on an Internet forum about big decisions involving other people's money, we demand quick and decisive action, preferably involving very large outlays of cash. Where's our payoff otherwise?

In all seriousness, ramble all you like. At least until the Jeff's institute per word pricing.

GIIIs are a bargain now so a copilot wouldn't be that much and just think, you can stand up and walk back to the potty on that 200 km leg.

Exactly Mark!! Now we're talking.

For the price of a new Cirrus...

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 384501.htm

And apparently from the last photo of the cabin, you don't even need a pilot, let alone a copilot!!

He could probably trade the A-36 even for this onehttp://www.aviationclassifieds.com/1 ... ale/191712

Good morning Russell,





Exactly Mark!! Now we're talking.

For the price of a new Cirrus...

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 384501.htm

And apparently from the last photo of the cabin, you don't even need a pilot, let alone a copilot!!

Guy-- Don't take it to serious and need to apologize.. You got the information then made the best decision IMO...
These planes aren't going anywhere, they'll be here when your family needs more room. So in the mean time just fly in an A36, which is cool bird...