First plane

wrote:


Even older airplanes are this way, e.g. the Tri-Pacer started out at
135 HP and ended up with 160 HP when production ended.




Yeah, but you still got a Tri Pacer.

: capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
: fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.

I didn't know there were *any* 235/236 Cherokees that had a fixed-pitch prop.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

I didn't know there were *any* 235/236 Cherokees that had a fixed-pitch prop.

Yeah, early 235s were all delivered with fixed pitch props. Then the
variable pitch became an option, and eventually standard -- but I don't
know what years this happened.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Fred,

Where do you live?

--Dan

fred wrote:
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

On 3 Dec 2006 05:39:29 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.


The above statement (as well as most of your post) while well
intended, is untrue.

Yes there are differences between the models, but not as you describe.

Without going into alot of detail here are the basics:

PA-28-235A - stock fixed pitch, 84 gal of fuel, and NO BAGGAGE
compartment. Years built (64 / 65)

PA-28-235B - stock constant speed, has baggage compartment, 84 gal of
fuel, will haul anything you put in it with ease. No third rear
window.

PA-28-235C - stock constant speed, has baggage compartment, 84 gal of
fuel, will haul anything you put in it with ease. Has third rear
window because the fuselage was "stretched" for this model.

The Pathfinder was only built for 1 or 2 model years and I believe it
fits into the 235C category although it could have been the first
model to have the taper wing. Fuel capacity was not decreased until
the 235 became a 236 called the Dakota.

If you don't mind the wings on the bottom, the 235 is a great 4 place
plus bags plane.

HTH.
z

: Yeah, early 235s were all delivered with fixed pitch props. Then the
: variable pitch became an option, and eventually standard -- but I don't
: know what years this happened.
: --

Yeah... With that much power behind a fixed-pitch prop, it'd be ugly to try to
get it optimal. Either you can get climb, or appropriate cruise, but not both.

It still seems like 235hp is overkill for the PA28 airframe. What sort of TAS
and fuel burn do you get in yours, Jay?

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

On Dec 4, 9:04 am, wrote:

*****
It still seems like 235hp is overkill for the PA28 airframe. What sort
of TAS and fuel burn do you get in yours, Jay?
*****


I fly an Archer and a Dakota of similar vintage (1980/1979). The
Archer is 127 KTAS on 9.5 gph. The Dakota is 147 KTAS on about 13 gph.
The Dakota fuel burn is +/- 1 gph - I haven't spent much time in it
recently.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC

I've got quite a few hours (including a winter coast-to-coast trip) in a
pair of '74 Pathfinders from a former partnership. I found the '74
Pathfinder to be a great "4-adults plus baggage and fuel to go
somewhere" airplane. The original founders of that partnership did a
lot of research before choosing the '74 as the best combination of
features and value. When I sold my share (I still miss those planes) I
built a web site to advertise my share that included a pair of
spreadsheets that I had been using for planning W&B. You're welcome to
plug in your own figures to see what the plane is capable of carrying.
(I still maintain those pages for other former partners to occasionally
sell their shares.)

http://www.4-fs.com/baja/performance.htm


Steve


Jay Honeck wrote:
Well, there is this:

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html


Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
times.

For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I see no body suggested the C182. Now like Jay's pathfinder the 182 is a
true 4 adults plus baggage airplane. Fly's very similar to a 172 although a
little heavier feel to the controls than a 172 and there is LOT"S of them
out there for sale right now. I used to love flying my fathers 182, was a
dream to fly and I could take my freinds up for a weekend trip to anywhere
(almost)


"fred" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

-----Original Message-----
From: PPSEL-student ]
Posted At: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 6:02 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: First plane
Subject: First plane

I see no body suggested the C182. Now like Jay's pathfinder the 182 is
a
true 4 adults plus baggage airplane. Fly's very similar to a 172
although
a
little heavier feel to the controls than a 172 and there is LOT"S of
them
out there for sale right now. I used to love flying my fathers 182,
was a
dream to fly and I could take my freinds up for a weekend trip to
anywhere
(almost)



The 182T that I fly on a weekly basis will no more haul 4 adults plus
baggage plus meaningful (4+ hours) fuel than the 172S we just traded out
with another squadron.

We only have about 60 extra pounds of radio and equipment so that can't
be the differentiator. Seriously, a 240 pilot and a 180 front passenger
plus a couple of 165 passengers in the back (pretty light for American
adults), 80 pounds of baggage and full fuel has you 173 pounds over max
takeoff weight.

You'd have to back the fuel down to about 350 pounds to stay within max
takeoff weight and then burn it down to 200 pounds to be at max landing
weight.

A 182 is a wonderful bird especially when properly equipped, and it is
one of the better four-seat load haulers. On the other hand however, if
you are planning on hauling four of us well-over-160-pound adults you're
going to limit your range to a little over 2 hours with no reserve.

I've come to believe that the best 4 place cross country aircraft all
start out with 6 seats installed. Take those last two seats out and
you've got a real nice bird.