Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

[Douglas Paterson]

Hello, All!

About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the
tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this
board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.

Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche
(PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb
performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the
summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and
now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques:

The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed
the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche,
they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is
a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to
believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability
of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of
entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either
to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other
thoughts?

The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure
out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the
line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the
maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all
for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and
they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance)
than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how
will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last
paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts?

Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Don Tuite]

Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
from hershey-bar to tapered wing.

The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less
door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent
avionics.

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
> from hershey-bar to tapered wing.
>
> The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less
> door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent
> avionics.

Actually, it's was pre-'73 235s that had the shorter fuselage. The
Dakota (1979 - 1984) is identical to the Pathfinder (1974 - 1978), but
with a tapered wing. (I think they may have enlarged the stabilator
again, too, but I'm not sure on that.)

Prior to '73, the PA28-235 line is (in my opinion) no better than a
PA28-180, simply because the back seat is unusable for adults. What
good is a 1400 pound useful load, if you can only carry kids and
double-amputees?

After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
or exceed.

That said, a Comanche is a very cool plane. You're right about the
costs, though -- they will be higher in every measurable way.

Finally, I don't know anything about he Trinidad, other than it looks
cool.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
> -235/-236.



If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
> -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
> have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
> or exceed.

It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.

Matt

[dave]

Doug,

I just bought a plane that's not on your short list but two pieces of
advice if I may. One - find a plane with the avionics you want.
After searching for many months and looking at airplanes, I found that
what others had told me is true. The lowest return by far on any
improvement you make in an airplane is in the avionics. I don't know
why but it is. I got a Garmin 430, garmin audio panel, Stec 50 with
alt hold and GPSS roll steering, Sandel 3308, KX155 and some other
goodies. BTW - the Sandel 3308 is fantastic.

Two - join the type clubs of any airplane your serious about buying. I
joined the mooney group, the bonanza group and the cessna group. I
don't know if there's a Socata organization but they have an active
website at socota.org.

Good luck with the search - it's a buyer's market right now.

Dave
Bonanza M35

Douglas Paterson wrote:
> Hello, All!
>
> About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
> professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the
> tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this
> board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.
>
> Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche
> (PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb
> performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the
> summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and
> now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques:
>
> The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed
> the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche,
> they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is
> a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to
> believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability
> of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of
> entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either
> to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other
> thoughts?
>
> The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure
> out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the
> line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the
> maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all
> for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and
> they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance)
> than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how
> will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last
> paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts?
>
> Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.


--
David Harnitchek, PE

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> > After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
> > -235/-236.
>
> If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.

not necessarily. quite often marketing trumps product superiority.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
>> -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
>> have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
>> or exceed.
>
> It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.
>
> Matt

There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.

The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.

A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.

A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.

For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.

KB

[Newps]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

>
> A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
> Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

Yep, the Lycoming design flaw is putting the camshaft up high. Having a
choice between the two it's Continental all the way. Lyc's are famous
for eating cams, that's a complete teardown. If you need to fix a
cylinder on a Continental you fix a cylinder.



>
> For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
> pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
> choice.

No doubt about it.

[Jay Honeck]

> > After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
> > -235/-236.
>
> If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.

Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel
for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night.


Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
performer the 235 is.

Heck, I hadn't heard *anything* about the line prior to researching it,
back before buying ours. Toecutter was the guy here who initially
clued me in to the awesome performance that can be had for a relatively
inexpensive price in the Pathfinder -- and the rest is history.

It'll out-perform every other fixed-gear, 4-place aircraft of its day,
in almost every performance parameter. If you want to haul four real
people, with luggage and full tanks, there just aren't too many other
alternatives.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
> sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
> many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
> performer the 235 is.

Hogwash. Even if the marketing caused all those 182's to be sold in
error instead of the Cherokees, which was not the cause, if the Cherokee
was indeed better it would sell for a lot more money than it does now.
You like it and that's great but you are a small minority. See the
Piper Cub as a prime example. Dirt cheap back in the day, take a look
at your typical PA-18 now, the price is way out of proportion. It's
because it is now known to be the best airplane for the purpose it was
designed for and also why you can barely give away a used Husky.

[Don Tuite]

On 14 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> > After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
>> > -235/-236.
>>
>> If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.
>
>Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel
>for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night.
>
>
>Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
>sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
>many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
>performer the 235 is.
>
>Heck, I hadn't heard *anything* about the line prior to researching it,
>back before buying ours. Toecutter was the guy here who initially
>clued me in to the awesome performance that can be had for a relatively
>inexpensive price in the Pathfinder -- and the rest is history.
>
>It'll out-perform every other fixed-gear, 4-place aircraft of its day,
>in almost every performance parameter. If you want to haul four real
>people, with luggage and full tanks, there just aren't too many other
>alternatives.

At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.

Don

[Dave S]

Douglas Paterson wrote:
> Hello, All!

> The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed
> the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche,
> they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is
> a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to
> believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability
> of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of
> entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either
> to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other
> thoughts?

I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the
trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great
vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered
but that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that
the tb9 is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful
of gas we ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at
sea level compared to the others. Its a big airframe.

However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for
airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer
cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the
other american brands.

Dave

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
>>>-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
>>>have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
>>>or exceed.
>>
>>It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
> trounces the C-182.
>
> The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
> more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
> very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.
>
> A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
> which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
> the 182.
>
> A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
> Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.
>
> The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
> a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.
>
> For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
> pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
> choice.

I fly into a number of grass strips and fields with narrow runways and
lots of snow in the winter (well MOST winters anyway!). The Skylane is
far superior in these conditions. Also, I can much more easily find
emergency landing areas when I can see downward. The Arrow I fly now is
a real pain in this regard.

Does the 235 had a different fuselage design than the other Cherokee
family members? I find the Chrokee 180s and the Arrow I currently fly
to be very tight in shoulder width compared the the 182 I owned. And
having only one door that opens the cockpit to rain (at least it is on
the passengers seat!) is a real pain in bad weather. Nothing as nice as
running through the rain to my 182 and then loading up in a leisurely
manner under the protection of the wing. And you just can't beat having
two large doors.

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.

To say that one airplane is "best" is just stupid as it all depends on
your mission.

Matt

[Doug[_1_]]

Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed, comfort, instruments and on
floats. The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
land short. They are comparably priced.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
>> > -235/-236.
>>
>> If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did.
>
> Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel
> for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night.
>
>
> Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
> sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
> many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
> performer the 235 is.

Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....

Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?

Honda spend virtually zip on advertising, but they can make cars fast
enough.

During the 80's and 90's the Japanese were blowing away Detroit while the
"Big Three" were outspending the Japanese big three by nearly 5:1 and 10:1
on advertising.

What was Piper's reputation in the 60's and 70's compared to Cessna? Who was
up and down and around and around?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
> > sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
> > many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
> > performer the 235 is.
>
> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>
> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?

Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> > Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
>> > sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
>> > many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
>> > performer the 235 is.
>>
>> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>>
>> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
>
>Comment for both Jay and Matt:
>Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.

And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash.
-- Stephen Harris

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> > Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the
>> > sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only
>> > many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible
>> > performer the 235 is.
>>
>> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>>
>> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
>
> Comment for both Jay and Matt:
> Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.
>
True! AIR, _Marketing_ is the research end of things(i.e., identifying a
market niche), _Selling_ (Sales) is the advertising and promotion side.

Again, IIRC, Japan spent a lot more on RESEARCH, Detroit spent a fortune on
advertising, but made what THEY wanted to make and didn't give a damn about
what the consumers wanted. The rest, as they say, is history!

[Matt Barrow]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>>In article >,
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>>> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>>>
>>> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
>>
>>Comment for both Jay and Matt:
>>Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.
>
> And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
> 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
> really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
> like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.

There goes my new keyboard!!! :~)

[Newps]

Don Tuite wrote:

>
> At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
> Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.

Yes, that's true. A friend had a Commanche 260. Can't see how you'd
ever pick a Commanche over a Bo but everyone's different I guess.

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:


>
>
> And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
> 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
> really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
> like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.

That's what the 140 was.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> > And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
> > 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
> > really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
> > like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.
>
> That's what the 140 was.

not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more
speed, etc than a 150/152

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Douglas Paterson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Actually, it's was pre-'73 235s that had the shorter fuselage. The
> Dakota (1979 - 1984) is identical to the Pathfinder (1974 - 1978), but
> with a tapered wing. (I think they may have enlarged the stabilator
> again, too, but I'm not sure on that.)
>
> Prior to '73, the PA28-235 line is (in my opinion) no better than a
> PA28-180, simply because the back seat is unusable for adults. What
> good is a 1400 pound useful load, if you can only carry kids and
> double-amputees?
>
> After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
> -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
> have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
> or exceed.
>

Jay:

Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.

What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher
operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>
> At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
> Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.
>
> Don

This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why*
you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that
matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! :) )

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"dave" > wrote in message
. ..
> I just bought a plane that's not on your short list but two pieces of
> advice if I may. One - find a plane with the avionics you want. After
> searching for many months and looking at airplanes, I found that what
> others had told me is true. The lowest return by far on any improvement
> you make in an airplane is in the avionics. I don't know why but it is.
> I got a Garmin 430, garmin audio panel, Stec 50 with alt hold and GPSS
> roll steering, Sandel 3308, KX155 and some other goodies. BTW - the
> Sandel 3308 is fantastic.
>
> Two - join the type clubs of any airplane your serious about buying. I
> joined the mooney group, the bonanza group and the cessna group. I don't
> know if there's a Socata organization but they have an active website at
> socota.org.
>

Thanks, Dave. I'm in full agreement on both points!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:27:47 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> > And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and
>> > 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper
>> > really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more
>> > like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk.
>>
>> That's what the 140 was.
>
>not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more
>speed, etc than a 150/152

Part of its problem. The perception when I learned to fly, in '68,
was that the PA28-180 was the Piper alternative for the 172's
mission. The 140 was neither fish nor fowl, and offered the
temptation of two back seats that you could not safely fill with
adults.

My impression was also that there were far more FBOs with 150s to rent
than 140s. My actual experience as a student and renter was at
Torrance, but I think it was the same at Hawthorne, Santa Monica and
Van Nuys, the other 3 big GA airports on the West side of the LA
basin. I do believe that the prevalence of 150 trainers boosted
Cessna sales over Piper.

My personal impression was that Cessnas were crackerboxes with flight
controls that had all the precision of the gearshifter in a VW
Microbus, while Piper handling reminded me of steering 1950s Chevy
pickups. My favorite rentals were Yankees and the FBO's Luscombe 8E.
(I was skinnier then.)

Now, almost 40 years later, I'm grateful to fly what I can get my
hands on.

Don

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:54:48 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
> wrote:


>Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.
>
>What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher
>operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....
>
>Thanks!

Jay's a flatlander. The 235 is my choice for Truckee and South Lake
Tahoe. It's especially nice the way you can pop it up into ground
effect by yanking on the flap handle.

All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
gph fuel consumption, aren't you? Filling 80-gallon tanks with
$4.00/gallon fuel?

Don

[Douglas Paterson]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the
> trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great
> vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered but
> that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that the tb9
> is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful of gas we
> ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at sea level
> compared to the others. Its a big airframe.
>
> However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for
> airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer
> cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the other
> american brands.

Agreed on the TB-9's unsuitability for my mission--I eliminated it from
consideration long ago. I suppose if I were at a lower elevation it might
be a good trainer and/or a cheaper way to build Socata experience, but even
then it wouldn't be on my short list for purchase.

As to parts, my understanding from the Socata Owners' Forum is that yes,
they do originate in Europe, but Socata US (or whatever they call
themselves), located in South Florida, has a superb record of customer
support and keeping the supply lines open. I won't embarrass myself by
calling anything aviation-related "cheap," but I've been led to believe that
it's no worse (cost or availability) than any other brand/model.

Indeed, I've been told that the Comanche is particularly *expensive* in this
regard, since parts are getting harder and harder to find at any price
(which is, I believe, the reason the insurance is so much higher?). Factor
in the 20-years-newer factor to boot, and I should think "in general" that
one would be buying more airframe parts for a Comanche than a Trinidad to
begin with....

I've no problem admitting I'm a newbie here--if I'm out to lunch on any of
this thought process, please!, set me straight!

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
> wrote:

>"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
>> Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.
>>
>> Don
>
>This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why*
>you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that
>matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! :) )
>
"Better compared" as in "It is better to compare the Comanche to x and
y than to compare it to z." Sorry for the imprecision.

Don

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

>
> Jay:
>
> Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.
>
> What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher
> operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....

And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
accordingly.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> "Don Tuite" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
>>Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.
>>
>>Don
>
>
> This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why*
> you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that
> matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! :) )

But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the
beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set,
and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having
a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear
of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was
paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly
anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did
maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but
it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the
same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out.
The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.

[Newps]

Don Tuite wrote:


>
> All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
> gph fuel consumption, aren't you?


I suppose it's possible to run 14 GPH down at sea level if you leave the
mixture full in. I burn 8 gph in my 520 in the Bo farting around the
local area at 155-160 mph indicated. Don't look at big engine/small
engine, look at miles per gallon.



Filling 80-gallon tanks with
> $4.00/gallon fuel?

$2.90 around here and falling.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:26:09 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>Don Tuite wrote:

>
> Filling 80-gallon tanks with
>> $4.00/gallon fuel?
>
>$2.90 around here and falling.
>
It's down here, too, but I'm anticipating. What's car gas been doing
up your way? Here, it's up 30 cents from its late-October nadir and
no expectation of a plateau.

Don

[Newps]

Gas is slightly higher now than its low point last fall. It is
currently falling and today it's at $2.11. Go to
www.montanagasprices.com to see the price. Substitute any state for
montana to see that area. Many areas are well below $2 now.




Don Tuite wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:26:09 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
>>Don Tuite wrote:
>
>
>> Filling 80-gallon tanks with
>>
>>>$4.00/gallon fuel?
>>
>>$2.90 around here and falling.
>>
>
> It's down here, too, but I'm anticipating. What's car gas been doing
> up your way? Here, it's up 30 cents from its late-October nadir and
> no expectation of a plateau.
>
> Don
>

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>> "Don Tuite" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the
>>> Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo.
>>>
>>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>> This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask
>> *why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the
>> Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
>> offense, Newps! :) )
>
>
> But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the
> beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set,
> and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having
> a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear
> of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was
> paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly
> anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did
> maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but
> it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the
> same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out.
> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
> and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.

If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)

The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to
look down is a real pain many a time. Yes, I know the advantage of
seeing the runway when in the pattern, but I spend a lot less time in
the pattern than I do flying cross country and if you fly a normal
rectangular pattern losing sight of the runway for a few seconds in the
turns is simply not an issue.



Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)


The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as
I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the
wing up in the mountains but this is minor. I don't miss the pillbox
view out of a 182. That was the first thing I noticed when I got the
Bo. I can see 10 times better out of the Bo than the 182, I would
really hate to give that up.

>
> The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to
> look down is a real pain many a time.



I don't find that to be a big deal.

[Frank Stutzman]

Newps > wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)

Thats what inverted flight is for ;-)

> The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as
> I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the
> wing up in the mountains but this is minor.

I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.

Its been 10 years since I flew anything but the Bonanza, but before that I
had some time in a 182 and almost bought a Commanche.

The only thing I remember about the 182 was how truck like the handling
was, especially in pitch. Probably not a big deal if one is travelling
cross country, but sometimes I like a mild yank and bank. My earlier
Bonanza is much more fun than that.

The Commanche sure was nice looking on the ground, but the view from the
inside was like being in a cave. Probably really wasn't that bad the the
plane I was looking at had a sort of a dark orange interior that probably
didn't help the situation.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Newps]

Frank Stutzman wrote:

>
>
> I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
> ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.


Yes, I forgot about that. Actually it works better as you can stand up
and not hit your head.

[[email protected]]

As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche 260
you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The
primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in
cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable
power.

Looking specifically at climb and high altitude performance, there is a
difference between the Dakota and older Cherokee 235/Pathfinder models with
the "Hershey Bar" wing. For example, compare "book" service ceilings:
17,500 ft for the Dakota and only 14,500 for the 235C. The longer wing
provides higher L/D, which is what you want if you need to fly high.

If you are going to consider RG airplanes in the same performance class as a
Dakota or a Cessna 182 then what you are looking at is an Arrow III or IV, a
Cessna Cardinal RG, or a 200 HP Mooney. The Mooney is quite a bit faster
but all three have service ceilings similar to that of the Dakota. The
Arrow III/IV and Dakota provide interesting comparisons because their
airframes are of virtually identical dimensions. They boast virtually the
same cruise speed and the Arrow service ceiling is just a little lower at
16,200 ft. The useful load of the Dakota is certainly larger, but a good
portion of the difference is eaten up in higher fuel requirements if you are
flying any distance.

If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged
airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front
Range.

-Elliott Drucker

[[email protected]]

On 15-Jan-2007, Frank Stutzman > wrote:

> I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
> ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.


The T-Tail on my Arrow IV serves the same function, and it's tall enough for
just about anybody to stand under.

-Elliott Drucker

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gas is slightly higher now than its low point last fall. It is currently
> falling and today it's at $2.11. Go to www.montanagasprices.com to see
> the price. Substitute any state for montana to see that area. Many areas
> are well below $2 now.
>
>
http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStations.aspx?m=1&l=1&zip=81401&x=7&y=10

Station by station; plug in your own zipcode

We're higher due to being in the midst of ski resorts.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jay Honeck]

> If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
> fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
> 235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
> hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
> like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.

While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load
2. Speed
3. Handling.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

;-)

"If Momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher
> operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....

We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've
flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid
City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees.

All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas.

No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
> seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
> off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
> can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
> accordingly.

With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
prop in about the same distance.

Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
laughing...

Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...

You were/are!

[Douglas Paterson]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
> > wrote:
>
>>May I ask *why*
>>you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for
>>that
>>matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! :) )
>>
> "Better compared" as in "It is better to compare the Comanche to x and
> y than to compare it to z." Sorry for the imprecision.
>
> Don
>

Ah. OK, I see what you meant now.

For the record, I completely agree. I mention the Pathfinder et al with the
Comanche & Trinidad not because I think they're apples-to-apples airplanes.
I include the Pathfinder because it's the only (*only*) fixed-gear aircraft
my research uncovered that met my mission description (I looked hard at the
Cherokee Six [PA-32] line, but decided it was bigger than I wanted or needed
and, largely as a result of that excess size/capacity, provided less
bang/buck than the other options).

When I first started, I'd no idea I'd still be looking a year later.
Circumstances. However, I think it was Day One, Lesson One, in Aircraft
Buying 101, both here and in every book I read, that the best method is to
define your mission first, then pick the plane that fits it. In that
regard, these three planes form a consistent (though hardly all-inclusive)
grouping.
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>>the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
>>offense, Newps! :) )
>
> But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers.

I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
Bonanza for essentially three reasons:

1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

2) The reversed controls. Weird again.

3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
pricey to maintain.

Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. Thanks for the
input!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Husky carries only 50 pounds of baggage.

I carry more survival equipment than that!

Karl
Super Cubs N4201Z, N7474D
"Curator" N185KG


"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed, comfort, instruments and on
> floats. The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
> land short. They are comparably priced.
>

[Douglas Paterson]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Commanche sure was nice looking on the ground, but the view from the
> inside was like being in a cave. Probably really wasn't that bad the the
> plane I was looking at had a sort of a dark orange interior that probably
> didn't help the situation.
>

Interesting comment. That's one thing I find very attractive about the
Trinidad--lots of windows, it feels very "open." Another is the cabin
width--I'm rather broad of shoulder (and none too skinny of waist, if you
catch my drift), the Trinidad feels downright agoraphobic compared to the
Pipers....

The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
Comanche and toward the Trinidad (which is a 180 from where I was last
March). The Pathfinder is the wild card--definitely cheaper to buy, and
almost certainly cheaper to own/operate. Hmmmm.....

Thanks for the thoughts!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...

>
> Jay's a flatlander. The 235 is my choice for Truckee and South Lake
> Tahoe. It's especially nice the way you can pop it up into ground
> effect by yanking on the flap handle.

OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer
time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind?
Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an
issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement
at high-elevation fields?

>
> All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
> gph fuel consumption, aren't you? Filling 80-gallon tanks with
> $4.00/gallon fuel?

Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... :)

Thanks for the input!!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've
> flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid
> City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees.
>
> All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas.
>
> No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft.

Great information, thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

> wrote in message
news:mRVqh.11419$wq.2321@trndny07...
> As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche
> 260
> you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The
> primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in
> cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable
> power.

Understood--see my response to an earlier post, I understand the Pathfinder
is odd-man-out in the group I list. I include it as the only fixed-gear
that appears to fit my mission description.

As to the differences you cite, I definitely like the speed boost, and even
a modest boost in climb rate is important at my higher operating altitudes.
I'm investigating the Pathfinder primarily for cost reasons--on my first
time out, I'd hate to ignore any viable candidate, so if the 235 can do what
I need for less money, it will be a real contender that I would have to
consider.

[snipped good discussion & comparison of various a/c]

>
> If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged
> airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front
> Range.

Considered, definitely. Turbo scares me--too many horror stories, both of
overtaxed engines and monster (even by GA standards) maintenance costs. I
don't expect "much" flying over the mountains, but who knows? In theory, I
agree with you; in practice, I think I'll shy away from turbo my first time
out. Trying to "beat" this issue w/ normal aspiration is a large part of
why the Comanche and Trinidad are on the list, btw: their 20K' ceilings.
I've been told the real-world ceiling of the Comanche is more like 17K'
(which still beats the "book" numbers of the others you cite), and the
Trinidad apparently really is capable of FL200.

Thanks, Elliott--great discussion. Dunno if you recall, but you helped me a
great deal when I was first starting here, in particular with understanding
the tradeoffs between fixed gear and retracts. Then and now, I appreciate
it!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:42:05 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
> wrote:

>
>OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
>the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there?

Field elevations there are around 6000 feet. Surrounding mountains
are high, but no tricky passes like CO, WY, etc.

The difference is between the 235 and Cherokee 180s and 172s Ive flown
into those airports with. With those punier planes, getting out of
the valleys involves hugging the mountain sides to pick up some lift
until you're high enough to go somewhere. With the 235 it's less
dramatic, though you still want to lean for maximum power before you
take off.

>Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
>assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
>"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
>the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
>gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
>realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... :)
>
Sounds like you're being conservative. Good. While I'm typing, let
me give you some numbers.

I belong to a club with 11 members and two airplanes: a '67 235 and a
'73 PA-28-180 Challenger. We've had the 235 for well over a decade,
and the 180 for a year and a half. (Had a 172 before that, but people
hardly ever flew it.)

We have monthly dues to cover fixed costs (hangar, tiedown, insurance)
and hourly rates for variable costs, including fuel, engine reserve,
and maintenance based on historical data on these particular aircraft.

The mechanic who does most of the routine maintenance has a very low
hourly rate, which skews things a little to the cheap side. (OTOH,
right now, we're all working off an assessment that's paying for an
early major following a prop strike on the 180.)

But by May, the assessment will be over. Based on historical numbers,
and assuming fuel near $4.00, the club treasurer figures we ought to
be charging $77 for the 180 and $100 for the 235, tach time, wet. At
those rates, the 180 will be subsidizing the 235, but if we were to
keep the 235 at $117, where it is now, and lowered the rate on the
180, the 235 probably wouldn't fly enough.

As a reality check, a big local club West Valley) has a Dakota that
goes for $140 (Hobbs, Wet)

So your spreadsheet ought to put you somewhere in that ballpark.

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
>>fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
>>235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
>>hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
>>like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.
>
>
> While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
> the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:
>
> 1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of
the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the
answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is,
then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


> 2. Speed

Not much difference.


> 3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is
more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is
very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls
are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)

>
> And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
> 182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
>>seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
>>off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
>>can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
>>accordingly.
>
>
> With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
> a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
> prop in about the same distance.
>
> Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
> However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
> instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
> myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
> was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
> laughing...

What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?


Matt

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
> and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.


But they look cool!

[Roy N5804F]

Matt,

All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.

PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
>>>fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
>>>235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
>>>hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
>>>like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.
>>
>>
>> While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
>> the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:
>>
>> 1. Useful load
>
> Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
> can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
> carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
> comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of the
> Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the answeris
> yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is, then it is
> simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.
>
>
>> 2. Speed
>
> Not much difference.
>
>
>> 3. Handling.
>
> I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's.
> I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is more responsive
> in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is very stiff and
> sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls are better
> balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)
>
>>
>> And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
>> 182...
>
> That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > 1. Useful load
>
> Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
> can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.

If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

> > 2. Speed
>
> Not much difference.

Depends on the bird.

> > 3. Handling.
>
> I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
> Cessna's.

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

> > And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
> > 182...
>
> That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)

If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roy N5804F]

Right on the money Jay,
It is almost a better ride in the back than in the front.
Loads of leg room with the extra 5" in the cabin length.
But when in the back I shut my eyes most of the time ;-)

In any case I would not fly in a high winger in case the cabin dropped off
the wings;-)
I will now put my fireproof coveralls on and the shields are already up !!

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > 1. Useful load
>>
>> Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
>> can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.
>
> If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
> has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
> When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
> occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
> always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
> stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
> seat up for flying.
>
>> > 2. Speed
>>
>> Not much difference.
>
> Depends on the bird.
>
>> > 3. Handling.
>>
>> I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
>> Cessna's.
>
> With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
> (by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
> dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
> the controls.
>
>> > And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
>> > 182...
>>
>> That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)
>
> If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
> the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Frank Stutzman]

Douglas Paterson > wrote:
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

Eh? Thats downright cool. Front seat pax has a lot more room and it
makes it easier to get in and out of the plane (second door would be
nicer, but would probably make things heavier). There is never any
question about who is flying the plane.

However, there are a fair amount of people who see it your way and feel
the need for two yokes. There are both factory and aftermarket dual yoke
systems that can replace the single yoke with about a half hours worth of
work.

> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.

Am not sure what you mean here. Maybe the gear switch being on the right
side of the panel and the flaps on the left? Its never been a problem for
me as I don't ever fly anything else. I suspect I might be an gear-up
accident waiting to happen if I went and got in some other retract.

> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.

I think Newps already addressed this well enough. The fact that i can
even get NEW parts for my 57 year old plane says enough, IMO.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

>
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
\


Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just
gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to
swap out.


>
> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.


Uh, what? I turn left and go left.



>
> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.

Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off.
To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats
in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550
feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty
is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which
is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado?

[Newps]

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed,

That's a given.


comfort,

Subjective.


instruments and on
>>floats.

Who cares about that in something your flinging around the dirt strips?
All you really need is a tach, a radio and a transponder. The rest is
just weight.


The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
>>land short.


The Cubs land and takeoff shorter.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
> Comanche and toward the Trinidad

You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
is? Holy Cow.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
> OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
> the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer
> time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind?
> Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an
> issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement
> at high-elevation fields?

Any 182 or Cherokee 235 will get thru 12,000 foot passes near gross
weight. You don't try to takeoff in either one at gross off a short
field at a high density altitude. Period.

[Newps]

B A R R Y wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
>> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes
>> time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to
>> pay.
>
>
>
> But they look cool!



Might as well look cool and go fast.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
> is? Holy Cow.
>

Two words:

- Doors!
- Visibility!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts.
>

Not so. Most of the systems stuff is standard, brakes, engine,
avionics. The rest is easily obtained through Socata.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
>>is? Holy Cow.
>>
>
>
> Two words:
>
> - Doors!
> - Visibility!

I'll grant you the extra door, wish I had it, especially a gull wing
door, that's cool. Visibility? Nope, I don't think so. They'd be
equal in the respect, plus the overriding downside to the Trinidad is a
complete and total lack of parts without having to order them in. Plus,
doing upgrades or getting an STC for something cool. I learned from the
Cardinal I owned. It's like owning an Apple computer. All the new and
great programs come out for the PC and maybe they come out for the
Apple. Maybe.

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Newps,
>
>
>>The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts.
>>
>
>
> Not so. Most of the systems stuff is standard, brakes, engine,
> avionics. The rest is easily obtained through Socata.

Everybody can get parts but nobody has ever seen a Trinidad, nobody
knows how to operate on them. It's just going to cost more all around.

[john smith]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?

For comparison purposes

from my PA28-236/Dakota manual...

Vx = 73 kts
Vy = 85 kts
Vs = 56 kts / flaps 40
= 65 kts / flaps 0

Total fuel = 77 gal
Usuable fuel = 72 gal
* the 236 is a taper wing with two fuel tanks, the 235 is a straight
Hershey bar wing with four fuel tanks

Max gross wt = 3000 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3011 lbs
For the airplane I flew, BEW = 1789 lbs, or 1222 lbs useful load

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The C182R that I fly, the manual lists the following...

Vx = 59 kts
Vy = 81 kts
Vs = 40 kts / flaps 40
= 50 kts / flaps 0

Total fuel = 92 gal
Usable fuel = 88 gal

Max gross wt = 3100 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3110
For this airplane, BEW =1880, or 1230 lbs useful load

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
>(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
>dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
>the controls.
>
C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> Visibility? Nope, I don't think so.
>

Well, I do. Definitely. I fly a TB-10 Tobago now (same airframe), and I
have about 70 hours in 35s and 33s. The Bo is still nice ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> It's just going to cost more all around.
>

More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>It's just going to cost more all around.
>>
>
>
> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
> really like your Bo... ;-)

I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.

[john smith]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>Two words:
>
>- Doors!
>- Visibility!
>
When Trinadads first arrived in the US, the complaint was the lack of
ventilation. All the glass made for a green house in the cabin.

I never heard if this adquately was addressed in subsequent models.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Two words:
>>
>> - Doors!
>> - Visibility!
>>
> When Trinadads first arrived in the US, the complaint was the lack of
> ventilation. All the glass made for a green house in the cabin.
>
> I never heard if this adquately was addressed in subsequent models.

I can believe that. I always snickered at the planes with curtains,
looked ridiculous. Now I know why. I need them in the Bo. I will
probably have my wife cobble something up with fabric and velcro.

[Montblack]

("Douglas Paterson" wrote)
> About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
> professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past
> the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on
> this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.

> Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.


What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K?

The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other
partners?

They were asking around $420K.
Looks like now $175K (x3) might be closer (loaded + tax)

Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.
<http://www.asijetcenter.com/index.cfm?event=pageview&contentpieceid=1404>
AOPA Flight review (Nov 2006) Specs at the bottom

The Cool Factor will not fit in a 40' hangar ...44.5' wingspan.

Q: Consider, for a moment, if 100LL will be around much longer?
A: You won't care. You'll have liquid cooled diesel engines.

Q: Parts?
A: Warranty!


Montblack

[Newps]

Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
$574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
million.



Montblack wrote:
> ("Douglas Paterson" wrote)
>
>>About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
>>professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past
>>the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on
>>this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.
>
>
>>Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.
>
>
>
> What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K?
>
> The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other
> partners?
>
> They were asking around $420K.
> Looks like now $175K (x3) might be closer (loaded + tax)
>
> Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.
> <http://www.asijetcenter.com/index.cfm?event=pageview&contentpieceid=1404>
> AOPA Flight review (Nov 2006) Specs at the bottom
>
> The Cool Factor will not fit in a 40' hangar ...44.5' wingspan.
>
> Q: Consider, for a moment, if 100LL will be around much longer?
> A: You won't care. You'll have liquid cooled diesel engines.
>
> Q: Parts?
> A: Warranty!
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:02:48 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
>$574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
>million.
>
Soon as the minimum wage boost cuts in, it'll go right back up.

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
> "heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
> wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
> several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
> that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
> its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
> With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
> and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
> in instrument flying.

That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.

Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
*yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
know you can trim out most of that force...)

Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
would never have liked it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>>
>> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
>> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>>
>> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially
>> my first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
>
> \
>
>
> Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just
> gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to
> swap out.

If my wife was that big ... it wouldn't be the controls I'd be swapping!
:-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

> Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
> looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
> plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off.
> To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats
> in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550
> feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty
> is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which
> is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado?

I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
gradient? The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

B A R R Y wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
>> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes
>> time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to
>> pay.
>
>
>
> But they look cool!

I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
a Trinidad. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>> Newps,
>>
>>
>>> It's just going to cost more all around.
>>>
>>
>>
>> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
>> really like your Bo... ;-)
>
>
> I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
> like shock cooling, more myth than reality.

Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.


Matt

[dave]

Doug,
Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons.
1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The
throw over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything
else in a Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have
to. It's like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised
at how smooth and robust the controls are.

2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza
there's really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what
it means. The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all
clearly identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the
stick in my right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in
the right hand as it is in most side by side airplanes.

3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less
than 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly
to maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber
flap bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for
$400.00. You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts
cost - labor is labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance
will be stuff that is common not Beech specific-engine, radio,
instruments, tires, brakes, fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc.

Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you
think. It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't
own or don't like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I
let my friends talk me into at least flying one before I bought
something else.

Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for
me was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and
spoke to the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess
mechanics speak a special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get
better information from other mechanics than I could have. Finally
when we had what we thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection
for me.
I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck.
Dave
M35


Douglas Paterson wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>>> the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
>>> offense, Newps! :) )
>> But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers.
>
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
>
> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.
>
> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.
>
> Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
> airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. Thanks for the
> input!

[Matt Whiting]

Roy N5804F wrote:

>
> Matt,
>
> All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
> The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
> length.
> There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
> Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
> several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
> longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
> The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
> Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
> In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
> distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
> I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
> and front seat passenger.
>
> PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
> distance, go places, airplane.
> We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
> big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

Probably depends on what size you are. I'm shorter than you (6' even),
but I weight 225 lbs and am not all that fat. I worked as a logger for
6 years during high school and college and have fairly broad shoulders.
I find the Arrow barely comfortable with another person anywhere near
my size in the right seat. The Skylane was plenty roomy. I don't know
the exact measurements, but the Arrow feels even narrower to me than a
Skyhawk, but it may be part illusion with the roof curving over my head.
I flew several 4.5 hour legs in my 182, but I find 1.5 hours in the
Arrow to be a long time.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>1. Useful load
>>
>>Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
>>can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.
>
>
> If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
> has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
> When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
> occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
> always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
> stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
> seat up for flying.

Yes, it is a 67 and is basically a two passenger commercial pilot trainer.


> With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
> (by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
> dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
> the controls.

My 67 Skylane was not much heavier in pitch than the 67 Arrow I fly now,
especially at forward CG as when I'm flying alone or with two in the
front seat.

I'd always heard how heavy Skylane's were in pitch and how easy it was
to land on the nosewheel. I found this to be pure bunk. I demonstrated
to a skeptic that I could flare and land with two fingers. And I had
capacity left over with two fingers. I could probably have landed with
one, but I felt that was too risky if I slipped. :-)

>
>>>And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
>>>182...
>>
>>That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)
>
>
> If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
> the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?
>
>
> For comparison purposes
>
> from my PA28-236/Dakota manual...
>
> Vx = 73 kts
> Vy = 85 kts
> Vs = 56 kts / flaps 40
> = 65 kts / flaps 0
>
> Total fuel = 77 gal
> Usuable fuel = 72 gal
> * the 236 is a taper wing with two fuel tanks, the 235 is a straight
> Hershey bar wing with four fuel tanks
>
> Max gross wt = 3000 lbs
> Max ramp wt = 3011 lbs
> For the airplane I flew, BEW = 1789 lbs, or 1222 lbs useful load
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The C182R that I fly, the manual lists the following...
>
> Vx = 59 kts
> Vy = 81 kts
> Vs = 40 kts / flaps 40
> = 50 kts / flaps 0
>
> Total fuel = 92 gal
> Usable fuel = 88 gal
>
> Max gross wt = 3100 lbs
> Max ramp wt = 3110
> For this airplane, BEW =1880, or 1230 lbs useful load

I really question then the claim that the takeoff and landing roll of
the 235/6 is even close to the 182. 15 knots difference in stall is
huge. I know I was amazed at the difference between my Skylane and the
Arrow. The stall isn't a lot higher, but Vx and Vy are much higher.

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Newps,
>>
>>
>>>It's just going to cost more all around.
>>>
>>
>>
>> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
>> really like your Bo... ;-)
>
> I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's like
> shock cooling, more myth than reality.

The inverse of price is availability.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of $574K
> down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046 million.
>
Just as I (more or less) predicted in the thread about the Raytheon buyout.

[Matt Barrow]

Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

Not to worry!

http://www.cygnet.aero/p_dualyoke.html

[Dave[_3_]]

We are happy owners of a 150 hp Warrior...

But with recently installed Mattison VG's and gap seals...

SERIOUS change in takeoff performance!.. POH is no good any more. Need
to nail down an all new set of numbers..

....Need a new page in the book.....

Been fun...

Dave



On 15 Jan 2007 20:31:08 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
>> seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
>> off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
>> can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
>> accordingly.
>
>With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
>a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
>prop in about the same distance.
>
>Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
>However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
>instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
>myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
>was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
>laughing...
>
>Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...
>
>;-)

[Ken Reed]

> > But they look cool!

> Might as well look cool and go fast.

I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
>> Comanche and toward the Trinidad
>
> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad is?
> Holy Cow.

I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing something
objective here?

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

Consolidating my replies to several folks who responded on this
sub-thread--Dave's reply pretty much covered them all, so it's convenient to
do so.

"dave" > wrote in message
. ..
> Doug,
> Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons.
> 1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The throw
> over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything else in a
> Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have to. It's
> like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised at how
> smooth and robust the controls are.

I know every description I've read of Bonanzas have the theme of "well
built" and "solid"--no argument there. I'm also aware of the adapters
(right term?) that convert it to a dual-yoke system--but, that still leaves
a huge bar (two, now) out in front of the panel. Big deal? Probably not,
but it is a detractor (to me).

>
> 2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza there's
> really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what it means.
> The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all clearly
> identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the stick in my
> right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in the right hand
> as it is in most side by side airplanes.

Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the flap/gear
handles are reversed from a standard setup.

>
> 3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less than
> 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly to
> maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber flap
> bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for $400.00.
> You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts cost - labor is
> labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance will be stuff that
> is common not Beech specific-engine, radio, instruments, tires, brakes,
> fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc.

Not true. Later models, sure, but late-80s TB-20s are in the $120Ks--I even
saw a '92 model (w/ a GNS 530!) for $119.9K (it had already sold--I suspect
it had that Lycoming cam subject to the SB in it as a driver of the price).
Compared to similar vintage Bos, that's a lot less money, no? Understood on
the mx issues.

>
> Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you think.
> It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't own or don't
> like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I let my friends
> talk me into at least flying one before I bought something else.
>

True again. Of course, if I could fly everything that's out there, I'd
never get around to buying.... :) I've never seen a Bo for rent--could be
I haven't looked hard enough (which is true), but they're hardly an FBO
staple....

> Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for me
> was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and spoke to
> the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess mechanics speak a
> special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get better information
> from other mechanics than I could have. Finally when we had what we
> thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection for me.

Now THAT is probably the most key piece of advice yet! How did you go about
finding the "expert"? What were his qualifications (AP/IA--but, did you
look for someone w/ XXX experience working on Bos, or what)? I'm obviously
going to want to have a pre-buy done--I imagine that you paid more than you
would have for "just" a pre-buy, but less than you would have for a pre-buy
plus another person acting as your search agent.... Intriguing idea, I
think I want to use it!

> I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck.
> Dave
> M35
>

Enjoying it, yes--but, also frustrated. Every time I feel like I've learned
enough to make a decision, another data point comes in that skews the
result! I certainly appreciate everyone's help and the overall discussion,
though....

Thanks!

Doug
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...

> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody has
> them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time and
> expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.
>

Please help me understand this. Are you saying that the Bo (for example)
has parts lying in stock at just about every FBO? I find that hard to
believe. The Socata folks are committed (they say) to a three-day maximum
delivery for parts not in stock (at their service centers--nearest to me is
Phoenix), with lots of stuff in stock "in the system" [source:
http://www.socata.org/html/upload.asp?File=Parts_Technical_Support_Socata_Air craft.pdf].
Is this significantly sub-standard to the situation with Beech parts?

Very fast vs $$? I don't follow. The Trins cruise around 160ktas at
12-14gph; the highest numbers I've seen for the Bo is 168ktas at the same
fuel burn. Slower (marginally), yes. Do I have bad numbers, or have I
missed something?

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
...
>> > But they look cool!
>
>> Might as well look cool and go fast.
>
> I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.

Rim shot! :) Well done....

Seriously, I did consider Mooneys. Right up until I climbed into one and
felt like I was in a mummy bag.... Great airplanes, just too small for
me....

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K?

Not really written in stone, but.... I started w/ $100K; I've since revised
that to $150K (with an obvious desire to stay lower rather than higher!!).

>
> The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other
> partners?
>

Love the idea. Problem is, I move frequently--any partnership I got into
would have to dissolve or buy me out in a matter of a couple of years.
Primarily for that reason, I discarded the partnership idea early on.

Thanks for the thought, though!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Jay Honeck]

> I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
> a Trinidad. :-)

Although our Pathfinder is a very fine looking plane, I'd have to give
the styling edge to the Trinidad.

But I wouldn't trade Atlas for one, even up.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
> Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?

1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
> holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
> cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
> Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
> airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.

Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.

Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> We are happy owners of a 150 hp Warrior...

We loved our Warrior -- it was a sweet plane, and your mods sound
great. If it was just Mary and me, we'd have likely kept it forever.

Unfortunately, there is no substitute for horsepower when you've got
two growing teenagers. When we couldn't get off the ground anymore on
a hot day, we knew it was time to look for something bigger. The
Pathfinder has been our perfect solution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
> $574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
> million.

That's absurd. What kind of a dolt would pay that kind of money for
what amounts to a brand-new antique? You can buy a perfectly good
used biz-jet for those prices!

It would certainly take an unusual combination of money and gullibility
-- which (I suppose) explains why Beech sells so few of them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
> by any measure.
>

IMHO, we're comparing apples and oranges here. You won't find a Trinidad
older than mid-80s, since they weren't built before. Now compare the price
of a late-80s Bo to a Trinidad. See?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
>>a Trinidad. :-)
>
>
> Although our Pathfinder is a very fine looking plane, I'd have to give
> the styling edge to the Trinidad.
>
> But I wouldn't trade Atlas for one, even up.

I don't like the way the lines don't seem to "line up" on the windows
and I don't like the looks at all of the tail at all with the rudder so
far forward compared to the elevator. It just looks like parts to stuck
on rather than designed in.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
>>holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
>>cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
>>Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
>>airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.
>
>
> Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
> completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
> their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.
>
> Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
> they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
> their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.

They make 245s with two doors, a wide cockpit and a high wing? :-)

If not, they aren't comparable to a 182 in every way or even the ways
important to me.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>>Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>
>
> 1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>
> Sounds like "trounced" to me!

Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
the 1460 in his post?

Matt

[john smith]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>>> Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>>
>>
>> 1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>>
>> Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>
> Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
> Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
> the 1460 in his post?

I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

[Matt Barrow]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>>
>>> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
>>> Comanche and toward the Trinidad
>>
>> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad is?
>> Holy Cow.
>
> I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
> starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing
> something objective here?
Let's see....repair costs, parts availability, then he contrasts that with
the real world of parts supply chain from Bonanza.

Hey, you asked for counsel, but it sounds like you already had your mind
made-up.

Matt Barrow
Beech 36-TN

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
>> looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
>> plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade
>> off. To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two
>> seats in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of
>> runway, 550 feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance.
>> The real beauty is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your
>> 182/Cherokee, which is really what you're looking for, right, being
>> there in Colorado?
>
>
> I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
> gradient?



Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your leaving
from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above you. In the
182 I would take off and then manuver next to the mountains for some
lift but would still have to circle back in the valley to get the
required altitude to head for home. With the Bo there's no circling
required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real world climb and I'm going
30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50 mph faster once levelled out
burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip.




The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
> 182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
> about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.

If I want to go at the same climb speed as I did in my 182, 80 mph, I
would still outclimb the 182. At Schafer I am airborne with gear up in
ground effect before the halfway point, about 1800 feet, I accelrate as
much as possible at about 50 agl and then zoom climb as the 100 foot
trees approcah at the end of the runway, climbing about 2000 fpm for
about 30 seconds and then settling back to 13-1500.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>> Newps,
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's just going to cost more all around.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
>>> really like your Bo... ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
>> like shock cooling, more myth than reality.
>
>
> Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
> by any measure.


It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I paid
$88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:


>
> The inverse of price is availability.

No, the inverse is market demand. There's no demand for a Trinidad but
they're new so the price will be high. There's a huge demand for the
182, of most moel years, so their price will be high. There's no
corresponding demand for a 235, their price will be low.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
>>Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of $574K
>>down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046 million.
>>
>
> Just as I (more or less) predicted in the thread about the Raytheon buyout.


The feeling in the Beech crowd is the new owners will generally be good
for Beech.

[Newps]

Ken Reed wrote:

>>>But they look cool!
>
>
>>Might as well look cool and go fast.
>
>
> I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.

They weren't. No good off road.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>>>The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
>>>Comanche and toward the Trinidad
>>
>>You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad is?
>>Holy Cow.
>
>
> I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
> starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing something
> objective here?



I have nothing against the Trinidad, I think it's cool looking. But to
say the Bo isn't what you're looking for but the Trinidad is makes no
sense whatsoever, from an owners point of view.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
> Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
> point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the flap/gear
> handles are reversed from a standard setup.


Flap and gear are different from others, engine controls are standard.

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody has
>>them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time and
>>expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.
>>
>
>
> Please help me understand this. Are you saying that the Bo (for example)
> has parts lying in stock at just about every FBO? I find that hard to
> believe. The Socata folks are committed (they say) to a three-day maximum
> delivery for parts not in stock (at their service centers--nearest to me is
> Phoenix), with lots of stuff in stock "in the system" [source:
> http://www.socata.org/html/upload.asp?File=Parts_Technical_Support_Socata_Air craft.pdf].
> Is this significantly sub-standard to the situation with Beech parts?


You have to live thru this to understand. I owned a Cessna Cradinal for
a while. You call or go up to your favorite FBO parts counter and they
look at you strange, they pull out the Cardinal book. You notice it's
nearly brand new looking because it doesn't get used. Does the FBO in
Burnt Scrotum, Nevada even have the books for a Trinidad? If it takes
the guy threee days to figure out what to order you're going to tire
quickly of your bird.


>
> Very fast vs $$? I don't follow. The Trins cruise around 160ktas at
> 12-14gph; the highest numbers I've seen for the Bo is 168ktas at the same
> fuel burn.

My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have
to spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or
enjoy the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> Mine
> is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
> fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.
>

See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
> I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
> I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
> load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
> the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/piper_pathfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

John Smith.
For failure to use all available (Google) resources:

You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


Montblack
"Oui" "Oui"

[Ray Andraka]

john smith wrote:

>
> I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
> I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
> load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
> the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
weight.

[Dave Butler]

Ray Andraka wrote:

> I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
> In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
> weight.

Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Newps,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's just going to cost more all around.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem
>>>> to really like your Bo... ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
>>> like shock cooling, more myth than reality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't
>> inexpensive by any measure.
>
>
>
> It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mine
> is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
> fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
> autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I paid
> $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.

Do you have a 35? 36?

Matt

[Ray Andraka]

Dave Butler wrote:

> Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>> I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
>> In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the
>> empty weight.
>
>
> Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
> aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
hershey bar winged models.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>>>> Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>>>
>>> Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>>
>>
>> Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the
>> Skylane? Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you
>> point out the 1460 in his post?
>
>
> I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
> I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
> load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
> the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

That may be the case. I was commenting on your numbers.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Ray Andraka >
wrote:

> > Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
> > aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.
>
> Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
> are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
> else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
> point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
> hershey bar winged models.

Over the years, Piper added more sound insulation and the like, adding pounds
to the basic empty weight of cherokees. One the readers out there has a
cherokee 140 (Jay M?) with a significantly higher useful load than my '74 140,
and there are zero differences in dimensions between them.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > Mine
> > is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
> > fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.
>
> See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
> Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
> league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>
>>>Mine
>>>is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
>>>fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.
>>
>>See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
>>Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
>>league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.
>
>
> It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
> the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
> 1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

Even if the airframes are identical, the value won't be given a 15 year
difference in age. There are always concerns about corrosion and metal
fatigue, for example.

I believe it was a member of the Piper family that a few years ago had
issues with wing failure due to fatigue. I don't recall the details
now, but it seems the airframes had upwards of 9,000 hours of low-level
flying in turbulence - pipeline patrol or something like that as I recall.

A friend and I were looking recently at an 83 Skyhawk that is in great
shape, but has more than 12,000 airframe hours. I believe it was
operated by American Flyers or a similar flight school. I was concerned
about the hours and what issues this might cause from a metal fatigue
perspective. My friend called Cessna and got through to someone in
their tech support group. He was told that Cessna 100 series airframes
have no life limit and that they know of airframes with well over 30,000
hours on them. I found this a little hard to swallow as I've never
seen one for sale with more than about the 12,000 that this 172 has,
however, I suppose the military or someone might have some with that
many hours. He told my friend that 12,000 hours wasn't anything at all
to be concerned about from a fatigue perspective.


Matt

[john smith]

Newps wrote:
> Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your leaving
> from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above you. In the
> 182 I would take off and then manuver next to the mountains for some
> lift but would still have to circle back in the valley to get the
> required altitude to head for home. With the Bo there's no circling
> required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real world climb and I'm going
> 30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50 mph faster once levelled out
> burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip.

Yes, and depending on the model of the Bo, you also have anywhere from
30 to 60 more horsepower to play with.

[john smith]

Montblack wrote:
> ("john smith" wrote)
>> I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
>> I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
>> load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
>> the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.
>
>
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/piper_pathfinder.html
> 1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)
>
> John Smith.
> For failure to use all available (Google) resources:
>
> You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


There's an appropriate line from Cheech & Chong to express my acceptance
of shame, but this is a family forum, so I shall simply respond, "Mea
Culpa! Mea Culpa! [As a Catholic child of the 60's, you should have
learned at least a little Latin. :-)) ]

Anyway... about the Little French Girl...

She has her probationary review in March. If all the stars are
inalignment, she should be flying a regular monthly bid schedule by
April. With luck, we might even see her return to the North 40 this year.

[john smith]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
>> Ray Andraka wrote:
>>
>>> I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does
>>> not. In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to
>>> the empty weight.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
>> aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.
>
> Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
> are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
> else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
> point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
> hershey bar winged models.

Thanks Ray.

[Jay Honeck]

> >>I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
> >>Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
> >
> > 1230 versus 1460 pounds?
> >
> > Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>
> Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
> Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
> the 1460 in his post?

Whose post? You were talking about "Jay" here (that's me), and my 235
has a 1460 pound useful load.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
> > I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
> > load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
> > the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.
>
>
> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/piper_pathfinder.html
> 1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

According to that chart, I was off by 10 pounds. ("Only" 1450
pounds...)

Luckily, I just removed an old DME from the panel that weighed about
that much...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
>>>I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
>>>load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
>>>the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.
>>
>>
>>http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/piper_pathfinder.html
>>1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)
>
>
> According to that chart, I was off by 10 pounds. ("Only" 1450
> pounds...)

So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
(more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two. And its value appreciation
is dramatically less than the Skylanes.

So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>>I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>>>>Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>>>
>>>1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>>>
>>>Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>>
>>Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
>> Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
>>the 1460 in his post?
>
>
> Whose post? You were talking about "Jay" here (that's me), and my 235
> has a 1460 pound useful load.

John Smith's post of 1/16/2007 at 11:56 AM ... the one I replied to.
Don't you have a threaded newsreader that shows this?

I quoted his entire post in my reply, so it was pretty hard to miss. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>>I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>>>>Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>>>
>>>1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>>>
>>>Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>>
>>Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
>> Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
>>the 1460 in his post?
>
>
> Whose post? You were talking about "Jay" here (that's me), and my 235
> has a 1460 pound useful load.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

John Smith's post of 1/16/2007 at 11:56 AM ... the one I replied to.
Don't you have a threaded newsreader that shows this?

I quoted his entire post in my reply, so it was pretty hard to miss. :-)


Matt

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Have you ever weighed you airplane?

Karl
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >>I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
>> >>Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
>> >
>> > 1230 versus 1460 pounds?
>> >
>> > Sounds like "trounced" to me!
>>
>> Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
>> Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
>> the 1460 in his post?
>
> Whose post? You were talking about "Jay" here (that's me), and my 235
> has a 1460 pound useful load.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

I doubt you have that much. They useful ALWAYS go down when actually
weighed, and the TRUTH comes out.

Karl
I should talk, my 185 lost 50# of useful when I weighed her. The factories
always lied about aircraft weight, and didn't have to weigh each one.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> > I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
>> > I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of
>> > useful
>> > load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
>> > the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.
>>
>>
>> http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/content/2004/apr/piper_pathfinder.html
>> 1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)
>
> According to that chart, I was off by 10 pounds. ("Only" 1450
> pounds...)
>
> Luckily, I just removed an old DME from the panel that weighed about
> that much...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
> It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
> purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.

don't sneeze at cheaper purchase, especially with the higher useful load.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>>>snip>>>

> So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
> It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
> purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.
>
>
> Matt

It all goes back to your mission.

For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has
more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how
many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?), and/or better short field
performance. A 1400 lb useful load vs 1200 lbs is a big deal, whereas 135
knots vs. 140 isn't...

KB

[[email protected]]

On 17-Jan-2007, Ray Andraka > wrote:

> >> I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
> >> In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the
> >> empty weight.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
> > aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.
>
> Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
> are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
> else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
> point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
> hershey bar winged models.


In the PA-28 evolution there were two factors that affected empty weight of
a given model. One was wing length (not necessarily tapered vs.
Hershey-bar) and the other was cabin length. As many have pointed out, in
the early '70s the various models (except the 140) each got a stretch of
about 5 inches in addition to longer wings. Taken TOGETHER the two changes
typically increased empty weight by between 130 and 180 lbs. HOWEVER, most
of the increase was offset by corresponding increases in MGW. Performance
didn't really suffer too much because of the higher L/D of the longer wings.

Here are some examples, with weights from Piper's technical specs:

Arrow 200 (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1459, MGW
2600, useful load 1199
Arrow II (stretched cabin, short wing); Empty weight 1523, MGW 2650,
useful load 1137
Arrow III/IV (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1637, MGW
2750, useful load 1113

Cherokee 235D (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1467, MGW
2900, useful load 1433
Pathfinder (stretched cabin, long Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1592, MGW
3000, useful load 1408
Dakota (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1608, MGW 3000,
useful load 1392

Note that a change (between Pathfinder and Dakota) from Hershey-bar to
tapered wing only resulted in a 16 lb change in empty weight.

Also note, of course, that these empty weights reflect airplanes with no
"optional" equipment like radios and other goodies, so typical empty weights
will be higher

-Elliott Drucker

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
>> Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
>> fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
>> autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I
>> paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.
>
>
> Do you have a 35? 36?

It's a real Bonanza, a 35.

[Newps]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, Ray Andraka >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
>>>aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.
>>
>>Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
>>are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
>>else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
>>point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
>>hershey bar winged models.
>
>
> Over the years, Piper added more sound insulation and the like, adding pounds
> to the basic empty weight of cherokees.



Yeah, but 200 pounds? That's terrible. I'm ****ed because I have a 22
pound lead weight in the nose for CG purposes.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

>
>
> Newps wrote:
>
>> Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your
>> leaving from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above
>> you. In the 182 I would take off and then manuver next to the
>> mountains for some lift but would still have to circle back in the
>> valley to get the required altitude to head for home. With the Bo
>> there's no circling required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real
>> world climb and I'm going 30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50
>> mph faster once levelled out burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip.
>
>
> Yes, and depending on the model of the Bo, you also have anywhere from
> 30 to 60 more horsepower to play with.



Right, and also up to 50 less horsepower, depending on the model.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
>
> So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
> but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
> stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
> substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
> (more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
> a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two.

That is the very definition of a crappy wing.

[Newps]

Kyle Boatright wrote:


>
> For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has
> more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how
> many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?),


Yes to these.


and/or better short field
> performance.


Definitely no to this. Useful load has no bearing whatsoever on takeoff
and climb performance. There's a lot of ground lovers out there with
some pretty good useful numbers.

[Newps]

wrote:


> Pathfinder (stretched cabin, long Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1592, MGW
> 3000, useful load 1408


Sounds like Jay better weigh his plane. Otherwise he will be the first
owner ever to have more useful load than the factory advertised spec.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
> 1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.
>

For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding
metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat,
vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad
discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too.

For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new
Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell
pretty well.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
>>> Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
>>> the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
>>> have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much
>>> and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have a 35? 36?
>
>
> It's a real Bonanza, a 35.
>

The one where the tail falls off? :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
>>It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
>>purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.
>
>
> don't sneeze at cheaper purchase, especially with the higher useful load.
>

I'm not. If those are your primary objectives, then the 235 looks like
the right choice. However, I believe the original claim was just a tad
broader than that. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>snip>>>
>
>
>>So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
>>It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
>>purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> It all goes back to your mission.

I agree. Which is why I questioned Jay's original claim that the 235
was the all-time best four-place single.


> For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has
> more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how
> many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?), and/or better short field
> performance. A 1400 lb useful load vs 1200 lbs is a big deal, whereas 135
> knots vs. 140 isn't...

It isn't 200 lbs more, and only for a few models of the 235. One data
set published showed the 182 with slightly more useful load. And the
load has to be useful. I wonder how many times a 235 is actually loaded
to gross. I had only a few occasions where my Skylane was at gross. If
you can't reasonably fit the load into the airplane, was is its benefit?
I live well East of the Rockies and fly into a lot of short, grass
fields (well fewer now as my local field was paved last year) and I'd
much rather than the takeoff and climb performance.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
> but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
> stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
> substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
> (more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
> a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two. And its value appreciation
> is dramatically less than the Skylanes.

That comparison chart is wrong in almost every other way. We cruise at
140 knots -- not 133, we climb at 900+ fpm or better, and that service
ceiling is almost laughably wrong. Of course, anything above ~13K is
meaningless without oxygen, but we've been at 13K and were still
climbing smartly. To think it would stop climbing in only another 550
feet is absurd.

Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.
In that regard, a stock Skylane may be a better-performing aircraft
than a stock Pathfinder. On the other hand, are there any 30+ year old
airplanes that are still "stock"?

BTW: I'm not sure where you get your information on a 235 having a
"smaller interior" than a Skylane. Although it's proportioned
differently, I don't think interior space is appreciably different
between the two makes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I doubt you have that much. They useful ALWAYS go down when actually
> weighed, and the TRUTH comes out.

I know.

However, I also know that I NEVER worry about weight & balance, which
is a wonderful thing. Four 200 pound guys, full fuel, 90 degrees?
Right -- let's go!

Let me tell you -- after flying Warriors and Skyhawks, *that* is truly
great.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>> It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
>>>> Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
>>>> the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
>>>> have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too
>>>> much and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than
>>>> $100K.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a 35? 36?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a real Bonanza, a 35.
>>
>
> The one where the tail falls off? :-)



The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


> Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
> made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.

One of the guys at the tower has a 182P, I believe that makes it about a
1973, with all the speed mods, I believe it's called the Flight Bonus.
Looks god awful ugly to me but he gets 145 kts true. I told him nice
job, you guys have $25K more into your plane than mine and I go 25 kts
faster and because of all that crap you've hung on there mine is more
off road worthy.

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> However, I also know that I NEVER worry about weight & balance, which
> is a wonderful thing. Four 200 pound guys, full fuel, 90 degrees?
> Right -- let's go!


NEVER?

"...adding a touch of Paul-power."


Montblack
So far, Atlas gets 30 more lbs of useful load - and counting :-)

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
>>"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
>>wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
>>several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
>>that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
>>its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
>>With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
>>and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
>>in instrument flying.
>
>
> That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.
>
> Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
> close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
> land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
> *yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
> know you can trim out most of that force...)

I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor
wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward
on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the
flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month
later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out.
>
> Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
> to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
> won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
> would never have liked it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:50:29 -0700, Newps > wrote:


>The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
>airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
>painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

So how does the factory cuff (or the Smith stub spar) come into play
then?

TC

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
>>>>> Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
>>>>> the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
>>>>> have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too
>>>>> much and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than
>>>>> $100K.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a 35? 36?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a real Bonanza, a 35.
>>>
>>
>> The one where the tail falls off? :-)
>
>
>
>
> The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
> airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
> painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

I thought Beech came out with a cuff to place around the ruddervators
where they enter the fuselage after finding a particular load condition
that could overstress the tail.

From:
<http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/bonanza/GA10.htm>

"The 10,000th Bonanza came off the production line in February 1977, but
five years later, Beech discontinued production of the V-tail Bonanza to
concentrate solely on the straight-tail Bonanza 36. Concerns over the
safety of the V-tail design (and the resultant liability) undoubtedly
played a major role in that decision. Independent studies found that the
V-tail Bonanza had a fatal in-flight failure rate 24 times higher than
the straight-tail version; a possible cause is the greater stress placed
on the V-tail aircraft's tail and fuselage during pitch and yaw
maneuvers than on the straight-tail version."

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:


> The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
> airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
> painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

Then why these problems?

http://bonanza.org/downloads/Dwerlkotte%20Final%20Report.pdf

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
>>but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
>>stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
>>substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
>>(more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
>>a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two. And its value appreciation
>>is dramatically less than the Skylanes.
>
>
> That comparison chart is wrong in almost every other way. We cruise at
> 140 knots -- not 133, we climb at 900+ fpm or better, and that service
> ceiling is almost laughably wrong. Of course, anything above ~13K is
> meaningless without oxygen, but we've been at 13K and were still
> climbing smartly. To think it would stop climbing in only another 550
> feet is absurd.
>
> Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
> made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.
> In that regard, a stock Skylane may be a better-performing aircraft
> than a stock Pathfinder. On the other hand, are there any 30+ year old
> airplanes that are still "stock"?

If a stock Skylane was faster than a stock 235, then with similar
modifications it would almost certainly remain faster. Do you have any
evidence that the data posted was not correct? If it is, do you have a
source of correct data that compares the two models head-to-head?


> BTW: I'm not sure where you get your information on a 235 having a
> "smaller interior" than a Skylane. Although it's proportioned
> differently, I don't think interior space is appreciably different
> between the two makes.

I got it based on owning a 67 Skylane for 6 years and 300+ hours and now
having flown a 67 Arrow for more than 50 hours. I asked earlier if the
fuselage width of the Arrow was the same as the 235 and was told that it
was. The Arrow does not feel nearly as roomy as the Skylane, especially
in cockpit width at shoulder level. I have not yet found any cross
section drawings of either to see what dimensions are where, but the
Arrow feels much tighter to me in shoulder level width and in footwell
space.

It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
Skylane.

Matt

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
>> point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the
>> flap/gear handles are reversed from a standard setup.
>
>
> Flap and gear are different from others, engine controls are standard.
>


Ah. OK, half of what I'd heard was true. I think I could certainly live w/
the gear & flaps in "different" places--the thought of reversed engine
controls was a deal breaker, but that's apparently not true.

On the gear/flaps--I'm guessing you got used to that pretty quickly and
never give it a second thought. I seem to recall reading somewhere about
that contributing to gear-up on the runway (during a T&G?) or something. I
guess that would only apply to someone brand-new to the airplane or someone
switching between airplanes.

Good food for thought. Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You have to live thru this to understand. I owned a Cessna Cradinal for a
> while. You call or go up to your favorite FBO parts counter and they look
> at you strange, they pull out the Cardinal book. You notice it's nearly
> brand new looking because it doesn't get used. Does the FBO in Burnt
> Scrotum, Nevada even have the books for a Trinidad? If it takes the guy
> threee days to figure out what to order you're going to tire quickly of
> your bird.
>

OK, I think I now understand your point--even if the parts have the exact
same availability, it's the human factor (i.e., lack of experience in the
field) that drives the issue. Good point--I hadn't considered that part of
the equation.

>
> My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
> everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have to
> spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or enjoy
> the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.

OK, you're giving me a faster number than I've read. +10kts is not earth
shattering, but certainly noteworthy.

I still wonder about the apples-to-apples of the $50K savings you're talking
about--a few other posters have commented on comparing a 40 year old Bo to a
20 year old Trin. I am trying to be neutral on the subject--I know there
are plenty of '60s airplanes flying, but I also have to believe there's some
intrinsic value to being newer (all things being equal). What would your
airplane go for if it were, say, an '86 model?

The insurance is a point well taken--I have NOT priced insurance on Bos.
May I ask what to expect on that? I was getting quoted ~$2,000 / yr for
$125K hull, $1M/$100K liability, $3K med on the Trin the last time I asked
(around last June).

Thanks!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>>
>>> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
>>>> Comanche and toward the Trinidad
>>>
>>> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
>>> is? Holy Cow.
>>
>> I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
>> starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing
>> something objective here?
> Let's see....repair costs, parts availability, then he contrasts that with
> the real world of parts supply chain from Bonanza.
>
> Hey, you asked for counsel, but it sounds like you already had your mind
> made-up.
>


Not at all! True, I asked for counsel, and I am very appreciative of all
the points of view I've heard here. If I don't understand someone's point,
I'll ask clarifying questions. Subjective views are very welcome, but, in
my position, I need to know to what degree they're backed up by objective
facts. Those points that've been offered up (repair costs, parts
availability, etc.) are still under discussion--with opposing points of view
being offered from various posters.

So--I stand by asking questions where I don't understand. For the record,
Newps himself replied with some clarification (regarding his Cardinal
experience), which I found very helpful to understanding his point.
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Douglas Paterson]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding
> metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat,
> vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad
> discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too.
>
> For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new
> Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell
> pretty well.
>

This is (part of) the point I've trying to formulate, both in my posts and
in my own head. There's got to be a reason--hell, even if it's all just a
figment of the resale market's mind--that newer used airplanes cost more
than older. I'm not trying to say or even suggest that there's anything
"wrong" with a '60s vintage airplane--just that there's some value (tangible
and intangible, I'd say) to newer.

Thanks, Thomas, for helping me with this specific concept. In particular,
the design & ergonomics comment is on target.

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>> The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
>> airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
>> painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.
>
>
> Then why these problems?
>
> http://bonanza.org/downloads/Dwerlkotte%20Final%20Report.pdf



It's turned out not to be a problem. A few cracks were found on high
time airframes, thus the AD. The same as the AD for the tail of 182's.

[Douglas Paterson]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Does the FBO in Burnt Scrotum, Nevada

BTW, you owe me a new keyboard...! :)
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
> Ah. OK, half of what I'd heard was true. I think I could certainly live w/
> the gear & flaps in "different" places--the thought of reversed engine
> controls was a deal breaker, but that's apparently not true.



You get used to what you're flying. Personally I like everything to the
left of the yoke, except the gear. That way I can fiddle with anything
I want at any time while telling myself to "stay left of the yoke."

[Jay Honeck]

> I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor
> wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward
> on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the
> flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month
> later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out.

That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.

Watch for me in the NTSB reports...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
> Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
> Skylane.

That (I believe) is where the perception of a smaller cockpit comes
from. The more laid-back "roadster" seating position of the Cherokee,
versus the "minivan" seating position of the Cessna, makes for a higher
center of gravity (so to speak) in the Skylane, pushing the window
sills down lower in relation to your line of sight. (It also helps
that the windows open right at your elbows.)

This is also why (to me) Cessnas felt like the roof was too low.
Turning in the pattern only accentuated that feeling, as the runway
alternately disappears and reappears... I always felt like I was
flying with my baseball hat brim pulled down too low over my eyes.

In truth, I think the cockpits are pretty comparable in size.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:


>
>>My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
>>everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have to
>>spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or enjoy
>>the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.
>
>
> OK, you're giving me a faster number than I've read. +10kts is not earth
> shattering, but certainly noteworthy.

And when it's time to overhaul, the IO-550 is an option for me. Due to
the fact the 550 was certified under newer and much more stringent rules
than the IO-520 I have you get much more than a 15 HP increase. Most
new 550's put out well north of 300 HP installed to be sure they meet
spec and no 520 puts out 285 HP as installed in the aircraft. The
difference is usually in the 40 HP range. The 550 guys are getting
190-195 kts true, so good in fact they can't use all their power in the
colder temps as they are way up in the yellow arc. Plus the 550 gives
you that speed at the same or less fuel flow as the 520, most guys seem
to report about a half gallon or so less fuel flow.



>
> I still wonder about the apples-to-apples of the $50K savings you're talking
> about--a few other posters have commented on comparing a 40 year old Bo to a
> 20 year old Trin.


That's a decision only you can make. I've owned three airplanes now and
I always want the lightest possible plane. The newer you get the more
amenities the manufacturer has added to the interior. Every one adds
weight. The newer interiors sure look like the inside of a car. If
that's what you have to have then you better buy newer. I personally
don't think there's any difference maintenence wise simply because a
plane is twenty years newer. The new one is still at least 20 years old
and the cost to maintain will still largely depend on how it has been
taken care of. Find a hangar queen that's newer and you couldn't print
enough money to keep it airworthy.



I am trying to be neutral on the subject--I know there
> are plenty of '60s airplanes flying, but I also have to believe there's some
> intrinsic value to being newer (all things being equal). What would your
> airplane go for if it were, say, an '86 model?


A hell of a lot more. But what would be the point? I would have less
useful, go slower and it would cost a lot more to operate. Simply
because I insure it for more my premium goes way up. In terms of total
dollars spent the older airplane costs orders of magnitude less.




>
> The insurance is a point well taken--I have NOT priced insurance on Bos.
> May I ask what to expect on that?



A year and a half ago when I bought the Bo I had about 1050 hours TT,
almost all in my 182. No retract time at all. $90K hull and insured
for six seats. $2800 the first year. Dropped to $2300 for this year.
I completely forgot to ask to have it insured for four seats only, I'll
do that next renewal. I would expect the premium to be less than $2K
with six seats.

[Jay Honeck]

> > However, I also know that I NEVER worry about weight & balance, which
> > is a wonderful thing. Four 200 pound guys, full fuel, 90 degrees?
> > Right -- let's go!
>
> NEVER?
>
> "...adding a touch of Paul-power."

Okay, okay...with a person of a certain...stature...positioned in
Atlas' copilot's seat, it is necessary to carry a *bit* more power in
the landing flare. However, we have NO problem taking off, even with
full tanks and three other people on board. Very few single engine
planes could do that.

> Montblack
> So far, Atlas gets 30 more lbs of useful load - and counting :-)

Way to go!

This winter, I'm kinda going the other way. I've "found" 10 of those
30 pounds you lost!

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Does the FBO in Burnt Scrotum, Nevada
>
>
> BTW, you owe me a new keyboard...! :)




Got that one from Al Bundy his own self.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor
>>wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward
>>on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the
>>flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month
>>later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out.
>
>
> That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
> it works.
>

This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.

[Thomas Borchert]

Douglas,

> In particular,
> the design & ergonomics comment is on target.
>

Thanks. Just the visibility out of a modern design (Trinidad, even more
the Cirrus and WAY more the DA-40/42) blows you away.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor
>>> wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward
>>> on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the
>>> flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month
>>> later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
>> it works.
>>
>
> This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
> pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
> flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.

That was my experience also. And I flew my 182 often alone with the cg
pretty far forward. If I trimmed for 80 MPH I found that after dropping
flaps 40, the force required to flare was not bad at all. Definitely
attainable with two fingers.

Matt

[dave]

Sour grapes?
Dave
M35

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
>> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
>> $574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
>> million.
>
> That's absurd. What kind of a dolt would pay that kind of money for
> what amounts to a brand-new antique? You can buy a perfectly good
> used biz-jet for those prices!
>
> It would certainly take an unusual combination of money and gullibility
> -- which (I suppose) explains why Beech sells so few of them.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Matt Whiting]

dave wrote:
> Sour grapes?
> Dave
> M35
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
>>> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
>>> $574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
>>> million.
>>
>>
>> That's absurd. What kind of a dolt would pay that kind of money for
>> what amounts to a brand-new antique? You can buy a perfectly good
>> used biz-jet for those prices!
>>
>> It would certainly take an unusual combination of money and gullibility
>> -- which (I suppose) explains why Beech sells so few of them.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"
>>

No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)

Matt

[Dave[_5_]]

> That was my experience also. And I flew my 182 often alone with the cg
> pretty far forward. If I trimmed for 80 MPH I found that after dropping
> flaps 40, the force required to flare was not bad at all. Definitely
> attainable with two fingers.

My experience as well - and I've been flying mine for 29 years now. I
have found, though, that it is easier to get a smooth landing if you
use only 30 degrees of flap. So I reserve 40 for when I really need it
(not often).

I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
these guys are talking about.

David Johnson

[Matt Whiting]

Dave wrote:
>>That was my experience also. And I flew my 182 often alone with the cg
>>pretty far forward. If I trimmed for 80 MPH I found that after dropping
>>flaps 40, the force required to flare was not bad at all. Definitely
>>attainable with two fingers.
>
>
> My experience as well - and I've been flying mine for 29 years now. I
> have found, though, that it is easier to get a smooth landing if you
> use only 30 degrees of flap. So I reserve 40 for when I really need it
> (not often).

I always used 40. The only time I ever landed with less than 40 was
during practice and the night I got iced up... :-)


> I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
> fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
> these guys are talking about.

That could be. I flew a K model, but I can't imagine the newer
airplanes being all that much different.

Matt

[Newps]

Dave wrote:

>
> I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
> fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
> these guys are talking about.

The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
about 1965.

[Jay Honeck]

> No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)

Well, gullibility anyway.

Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
design, or a nice little biz jet.

Gee, which should I get?

D'oh!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Well since the single engine prop is a lot cheaper to operate than the
biz jet, I'd have to opt for the prop if I wanted to fly it very often.
If I didn't fly very often then I probably shouldn't consider the biz
jet, which would require an additional type rating anyway.

I was drooling over some of the L-39s that were coming on the market so
cheaply a while back, but someone (I believe it was Jose) pointed out
how expensive they were to maintain and operate. What good does a
go-fast do me if I can't afford to fly it?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Honeck ]
> Posted At: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:18 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
> Subject: Re: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
>
> > No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)
>
> Well, gullibility anyway.
>
> Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
> design, or a nice little biz jet.
>
> Gee, which should I get?
>
> D'oh!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Stutzman]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
> design, or a nice little biz jet.
>
> Gee, which should I get?

After shopping for insurance, I suspect you would be getting the 60-year
old single engine prop plane design.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)
>
>
> Well, gullibility anyway.
>
> Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
> design, or a nice little biz jet.
>
> Gee, which should I get?
>
> D'oh!

Well, it isn't quite that simple. The purchase cost is one thing, but
operational costs live with you forever. Check the insurance costs for
a jet vs. a Bonanza, check the recurrent training requirements for a jet
vs. the single, check the fuel costs, check .... you get the picture.
I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
Bonanza and maybe even higher than that. Sometimes you pay more upfront
to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase,
but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.

Matt

[Dave[_5_]]

Newps wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
> > fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
> > these guys are talking about.
>
> The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
> about 1965.

Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any
newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics.

David Johnson

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


> I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
> Bonanza and maybe even higher than that.


25 times more at a bare minimum.



Sometimes you pay more upfront
> to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase,
> but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.

This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
will always cost more in money.

[Newps]

Dave wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
>>>fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
>>>these guys are talking about.
>>
>>The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
>>about 1965.
>
>
> Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any
> newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics.

That's different. The straight tails actually have a more effective
vertical stab and rudder than any of the swept tails. However you also
had a smaller elevator, lots of guys with the later small tails, early
60's, wouldn't use 40 flaps without people or other weight in the back.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>> I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
>> Bonanza and maybe even higher than that.
>
>
>
> 25 times more at a bare minimum.
>
>
>
> Sometimes you pay more upfront
>
>> to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to
>> purchase, but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.
>
>
> This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
> will always cost more in money.

That was my point. Even though a new Bo may cost more than a used Jet,
the Bo's lower operating costs will quickly swamp any purchase price
differential.

Matt

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor
>>> wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward
>>> on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the
>>> flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month
>>> later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
>> it works.
>>
>
> This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
> pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
> flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.
>
>
>
How far away from the yoke are you? There is a big difference when you
are pulling your arm from close to straight to 90 degrees and when you
start at 90 degrees and have to pull it into your belly. Also I would
bet your upper body strengh is quite a bit more than mine. I stand at
5'2" when I'm lying (5'1 3/4"). A yank for me is a pull for you.

Margy

[Montblack]

("Margy Natalie" wrote)
> A yank for me is a pull for you.


An instant classic! :-)


Montblack

[Dave[_3_]]

Suitably (and carefully) saved in the archives! :)

Priceless Margy!

Dave


On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:08:31 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Margy Natalie" wrote)
>> A yank for me is a pull for you.
>
>
>An instant classic! :-)
>
>
>Montblack
>

[vincent p. norris]

>I stand at 5'2" when I'm lying (5'1 3/4").

You can do that while landing an airplane?

Seriously, why not use some trim tab?

vince norris

[Newps]

Margy Natalie wrote:


>>
> How far away from the yoke are you?


Well, I never measured it but my arm would rest on the arm rest.

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:

> ("Margy Natalie" wrote)
>
>>A yank for me is a pull for you.
>
>
>
> An instant classic! :-)



Yeah, geez, I better make this off limits for my kids.

[Jay Honeck]

> A yank for me is a pull for you.

Ow! Ow! Ow!

God almighty , Margy, soda isn't supposed to be able to come out my
nose!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy Natalie]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Margy Natalie" wrote)
>
>>A yank for me is a pull for you.
>
>
>
> An instant classic! :-)
>
>
> Montblack
>
>
Get your mind back up to the gutter!

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>A yank for me is a pull for you.
>
>
> Ow! Ow! Ow!
>
> God almighty , Margy, soda isn't supposed to be able to come out my
> nose!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any idea
you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any different
from ...., oh well). Anyway, as I was trying to say... The closer the
pilot is to the yoke while trying to flare more perceived strength is
needed to bring the yoke to an aft position as it is easier to bring the
arm from fully extended to a 90 degree angle than from 90 degrees to
closer in. I do trim. I trim for the flare and push on the yoke on
short final, release forward pressure and lane. That's on a 182. The
NAVION on the other hand is a PLEASURE to fly and I can two finger that
in all but nasty crosswinds.

Margy

[Jay Honeck]

> Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any idea
> you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any different
> from ...., oh well).

Speaking for my fellow airmen, we're sorry.

No, really!

*snorf*

Okay, we're *not* sorry. But we now feel properly...chastened...
:-)

> Anyway, as I was trying to say... The closer the
> pilot is to the yoke while trying to flare more perceived strength is
> needed to bring the yoke to an aft position as it is easier to bring the
> arm from fully extended to a 90 degree angle than from 90 degrees to
> closer in.

Yep, Mary has the same problem. When you have the seat all the way up,
there just isn't a lot of room for flaring, and this problem was
accentuated in the 182, for some reason. Dunno if it was the
ergonomics of the seat-to-pedals-to-yoke position, or what, but it was
different enough from the Piper seating position to cause her trouble.

As I stated, she might have eventually gotten used to it, but why pay
$80K for something you have to get "used to"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack]

("Margy Natalie" wrote)
> Get your mind back up to the gutter!


I had three good lines typed out, but couldn't send any of them! <g>

You win.


Montblack :-)

[john smith]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any idea
> you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any different
> from ...., oh well).

This should read...
"Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, school teacher, little thing..."

[Margy Natalie]

john smith wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any
>> idea you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any
>> different from ...., oh well).
>
>
> This should read...
> "Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, school teacher, little thing..."
I actually quit teaching this year. Now I'm just a sweet, innocent,
docent program manager at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, National Air
and Space Museum. I guess I could still use the teacher line as I'm in
the education department and my license is still good.

Margy

[M[_1_]]

This is so true. At my airport there are two L-39s parked right next
to my Grumman. I can honestly say those L-39s fly less total hours in
the past two years than what I typically fly in a month.

If I were the owners of those L-39s, I would be nervous taking the
plane out if I let them sit for that long. Who knows what would break
and make a big smoking hole on the ground.

>
> I was drooling over some of the L-39s that were coming on the market so
> cheaply a while back, but someone (I believe it was Jose) pointed out
> how expensive they were to maintain and operate. What good does a
> go-fast do me if I can't afford to fly it?
>

[M[_1_]]

I'm sure everyone here has his fantasy of what to get if winning the
lotto. If a few million bucks suddenly show up in my bank account, the
most I'll get would be a single engine turboprop, a PC-12 or something
like that. Even in the world of turbine, it's hard to beat the cost
efficiency of single engine prop.

> This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
> will always cost more in money.

[Douglas Paterson]

"Douglas Paterson" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello, All!
>
> About a year ago, I started airplane shopping.

[snipped my story & request for info on & comparisons between the three
subject aircraft]

Thank you everyone who took the time to consider & reply--I got some great
information. While nothing's written in stone, and I still have some
learning to do before I actually write a check (and time is the issue
there--I firmly belief that "W-O-R-K" belongs in with all the other
four-letter-words), it's helped me reach at least a couple of conclusions:

- I still like the Comanches, but an apples-to-apples comparison between
those and the Trinidads favors the Trins

- I need to learn more about the Bonanza--from Newps' discussion points, I
may have overlooked a winning candidate

- I need to learn more about the Pathfinder--from Jay's discussion points,
it sounds like there are multiple flavors of the Cherokee 235 out there; if
I find that the Pathfinder meets my climb/ceiling/high elevation/high DA
needs, I may well stick with fixed gear after all

Once again, super input from the group. Thank you!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

[Don Tuite]

A final word, then. You're not getting married; you're buying a
flying vehicle.

If it turns out it doesn't fit your mission or your mission changes,
sell it and buy something else.

Only thing wrong with that advice -- when I got married, I thought the
mission was changing, and I sold the Taylorcraft and bought a Stinson.
Thirty years later, I've still got the same wife, I've got shares in
other airplanes, but I sure miss the Taylorcraft every warm sunny day.

Don

[Gary]

Douglas Paterson wrote:

> The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed
> the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche,
> they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is
> a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to
> believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability
> of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of
> entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either
> to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other
> thoughts?

I had 2 customers that owned Socatas. One sold his because he
wanted something
faster and the other because he couldn't afford to keep it. Parts
come from
France and they are priced accordingly. Windshield was over $1200 fob
France when
one owner over aggressively tried to de-ice his plane. Most of the
screws are metric on
the airframe, not standard AN hardware. The ailerons are actuated
with a torque tube
and push-pull tubes in the wings. The quality of the torque tube was
lacking where
it was attached to the yokes via a u-joint. Prior to the customer
buying the plane someone had tried to drill out the u-joint rivets and
replace them with bolts. Things wallowed out
again and the torque tube assembly needed to be replaced. The
maintenance manuals
are translated from French into English. Interesting reading at
best. In order to
replace the tube the entire bottom cover on the tunnel between the
pilot and co-pilot seats
had to be removed. The tunnel is made of thin steel - not aluminum!
After drilling out
dozens of rivets the tube was accessible. I don't recall what it cost
but it was an
expensive piece of metric sized chrome moly which had to be match
drilled to the
u-joint. It did not come pre-assembled. . The job was time consuming
because clearly
Socata didn't design the plane with this particular repair in mind.
While it may be a new design, if you pull the tail cone off you will
see a stabilator
trim mechanism which looks EXACTLY like the ones found on a Piper
Cherokee.
Over all the airplanes were not bad to work on. They both had IO540
Lycomming
engines on a tubular mount with removable top and bottom cowl pieces.
Once removed
everything was easily accessible. The underside of the fuselage was a
bit crowded
and required the removal of dozens of easily stripped metric screws to
drop the
access covers.

I never had the opportunity to fly one but the owners told be they
were very nimble
on the controls, especially after the sloppy torque tube joint was
replaced.

Gary Plewa
AP/IA
N4GP

[Newps]

Gary wrote:
Windshield was over $1200 fob
> France when
> one owner over aggressively tried to de-ice his plane.



So you can't get one from say Cee Bailey like the rest of us? Strike one.




Most of the
> screws are metric on
> the airframe,

Strike two.




In order to
> replace the tube the entire bottom cover on the tunnel between the
> pilot and co-pilot seats
> had to be removed. The tunnel is made of thin steel - not aluminum!
> After drilling out
> dozens of rivets the tube was accessible.



Strike three, poor design.