First plane

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.

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.

Well, there is this:

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

One little problem is that even within a given model the numbers
can vary, i.e. a C172 with 145 HP, 160 HP, and 180 HP.

Oh, and don't forget climb performance if you are in a hot/high region.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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"

Jay Honeck wrote:



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.

Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
cruise(mine...he, he).

Newps wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:



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.

Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
cruise(mine...he, he).

Yeah, that's the problem with trying to do any sort of generic comparison.

The characteristics of just about every airplane that has been in
production for more than a few years has changed over the years and
the latest model can be vastly different than the first model.

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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"

: 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 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