typical trainer specs

wheelsup

wheelsup

Well-Known Member
Looking for a little help here -

Horsepower, average fuel burn, average cruise at said fuel burn (TAS if possible) and range for these aircraft?

C-172P
C-172R
C-172SP
C-172RG
C-182S

PA-31-160

Opps! meant pa-31, not -34.
 
PA31 is a Navajo. I wish it were a common trainer!

Here's the specs for the trainer I fly most, the DA20-C1:

125HP
6.0 GPH @ 6000 ft & 2700RPM (65% power) gives 120 KTAS under standard conditions.
24 gallons of useable fuel

Mike
 
meritflyer said:
I think you meant the PA-30-180 which is the twin Commanche. Typical fuel burn is 12-14 GPH per side.
Click to expand...

Actually its a PA30-160 Twin Comanche and they burn 8 gph each side in cruise.

He probably means a PA28 would be my guess.
 
deserteaglle said:
Don't care to hear the specs of a 172m?:(




I suck.:(
Click to expand...

sure- what are they? it'll be close to the P model, probably the same

and whatever the PA-XX-160 is, it's a warrior. maybe PA-28-160??
 
wheelsup said:
sure- what are they? it'll be close to the P model, probably the same

and whatever the PA-XX-160 is, it's a warrior. maybe PA-28-160??
Click to expand...

A C172M is Carbuerated and lower Horsepower. So the nembers aren't the same.

Your Warrior is a PA28-161

If yo wanted numbers on older planes I might be able to help you. I am sure you can do a google for the POH of these aircraft and find the numbers you want.
 
desertdog71 said:
Actually its a PA30-160 Twin Comanche and they burn 8 gph each side in cruise.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. Miller Modification made a 180 HP and 200 HP version of the Twin Comanche and it burned 12-14 per side.
 
meritflyer said:
Well, yes and no. Miller Modification made a 180 HP and 200 HP version of the Twin Comanche and it burned 12-14 per side.
Click to expand...

and why would he be asking about a Modded up Twin Comanche as a Trainer?
 
the cherokee is either...
PA28-140 Cherokee 140
PA28-160 Warrior
PA28-180 Cherokee 180
PA28-181 Archer, II,III
PA28-200 Arrow
PA28-235 Dakota

And the many MANY other variants of the Cherokee family..I think that is what he meant because if he is comparing the 172 family the one that most closely fits in with them as far as specs is the PA28-180 although the 180 is faster than the older 172 trainers.

Or maybe he was talking about the Navajo..I would choose that over the 172M anyday cant beat the 190kts on your first solo X-C
 
desertdog71 said:
and why would he be asking about a Modded up Twin Comanche as a Trainer?
Click to expand...

Because they're out there in a good amount of numbers. So guess they're not all the 160 HP like you said. Each aircraft model may have several variations such as Piper's PA-28 series which ranged from 160 HP to 235 HP. Our school had 2 Twin Comanches (although I never flew them); a 180 HP and a 200 HP.
 
meritflyer said:
Because they're out there in a good amount of numbers. So guess they're not all the 160 HP like you said. Each aircraft model may have several variations such as Piper's PA-28 series which ranged from 160 HP to 235 HP. Our school had 2 Twin Comanches (although I never flew them); a 180 HP and a 200 HP.
Click to expand...

Its unusual for a school to have a Twin Comanche at all these days let alone 2 modded Miller Conversions. Sounds pretty cool to have those as trainers though. However the performance payoff vs fuel burn on those mods is not a good trade in my opinion. The turbo Twin Comanche has its benefits for high altitude cruise but thats about it.

Anyways, I it doesn't matter, he wanted numbers for a Warrior, and I can't help him on that one.
 
desertdog71 said:
A C172M is Carbuerated and lower Horsepower. So the nembers aren't the same.

Your Warrior is a PA28-161

If yo wanted numbers on older planes I might be able to help you. I am sure you can do a google for the POH of these aircraft and find the numbers you want.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the old P models were similar in HP, I'm just looking for a ballpark here - I remember the M models had 40 degress of flaps and the P's had 30 but they were both carbuerated.

I'm just putting some basic specs up here:
web site

That's what I need 'em for.
 
Yeah, they had two of the conversions. Like I said, I never flew them but everyone said they were pretty cool. Agreed on the turbo. Anything turbo is much better than normally aspirated, IMO.
 
wheelsup said:
Pretty sure the old P models were similar in HP, I'm just looking for a ballpark here - I remember the M models had 40 degress of flaps and the P's had 30 but they were both carbuerated.

I'm just putting some basic specs up here:
web site

That's what I need 'em for.
Click to expand...

you don't have a POH for these?

Anyways. The numbers look good but I think the P model is actually 42 gallons and 38 useable. They burn around 7 per gallon in cruise, but I usually plan 8 gallons. Actual cruise speed is about 105kts if you are lucky. I don't go longer than 3.5 hour legs for a safe margin on fuel burn, and giving you some leeway for an alternate.

These numbers are based on a C172K and M models.
The K is actually 150hp and 160 for the M.

Also you have the Warrior listed as a PA-34. :)
 
desertdog71 said:
you don't have a POH for these?

Anyways. The numbers look good but I think the P model is actually 42 gallons and 38 useable. They burn around 7 per gallon in cruise, but I usually plan 8 gallons. Actual cruise speed is about 105kts if you are lucky. I don't go longer than 3.5 hour legs for a safe margin on fuel burn, and giving you some leeway for an alternate.

These numbers are based on a C172K and M models.
The K is actually 150hp and 160 for the M.

Also you have the Warrior listed as a PA-34. :)
Click to expand...

no POH's...thanks for the info and comments...doing these pays the bills and flying is extra :).
 
172m, O-320 D2G

Hoizontally opposed, normally aspirated, air cooled, carburetor equipped, direct driven 4-cylinder, 320 cubic inches, w/ 160 man eating horses @ 2700 rpm's.

Yeah, it's pretty much a beast.:)

8 gallons/hour, 38 usable gallons, I guess around 125-130 mph most of the time..yes it is indicated in mph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top