In a message dated 5/16/2003 9:54:23 AM Central Standard Time, emcelr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > on 5/14/03 9:28 PM, Alireza Alivandivafa at DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx wrote: > > >The plane is not that sexy. I really don't know why everyone loves that > >thing so much. So it flies .90 at FL280 in cargo or .85 with PAX. Yes > that > >is cool, but the thing also burns twice as much gas as the 738, and about > 2 > >L/Km more than the 752. Hell, the thing gets worse mileage than the 767 > >series. > You don't understand the pilot mentality. We live to burn gas (or kerosene). I loved flying the old Learjet 25 because on takeoff I could convert fuel to noise at a ratio of greater than one to one capacity vs. burn. The airplane held 6,055 lbs. Jet A maximum, at takeoff we burned over 6,000 lbs./hr. total, I don't know exactly how much above because the gauge ended at 3,000 lbs./hr./engine. No, the 727 might not be sexy, at least to your eye, but I bet you will find a bunch of folks who really loved to fly that bird. And doing .90 is a macho blast, who cares about the fuel burn, the boss is buying! Mike, why a Sundowner? I flew them a while back, and although the cabin is nice and large (with two doors) it is not very fast, the Archer will beat it handily. Does it have manual or electric flaps? Also, watch the forward CG limit, with two folks up front and a full wing of gas we were very nose heavy (usually carried 50 lbs. of ballast in the baggage). E-mail me if you want to know any more. Jim Still CFI/A/I/ME Jim Hann Waterski J-41 Captain Lambert-St. Louis Airport (STL/KSTL)