Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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)

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

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"

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.

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

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"

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.

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

"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?

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