Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news

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

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"

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"

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.

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.

("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 :-)

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"

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

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

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/Dwerlko...l%20Report.pdf