Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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

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.

"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)

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

"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 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 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

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.

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

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.