Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Jay Honeck wrote:

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"?

If a stock Skylane was faster than a stock 235, then with similar
modifications it would almost certainly remain faster. Do you have any
evidence that the data posted was not correct? If it is, do you have a
source of correct data that compares the two models head-to-head?


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.

I got it based on owning a 67 Skylane for 6 years and 300+ hours and now
having flown a 67 Arrow for more than 50 hours. I asked earlier if the
fuselage width of the Arrow was the same as the 235 and was told that it
was. The Arrow does not feel nearly as roomy as the Skylane, especially
in cockpit width at shoulder level. I have not yet found any cross
section drawings of either to see what dimensions are where, but the
Arrow feels much tighter to me in shoulder level width and in footwell
space.

It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
Skylane.

Matt

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the
flap/gear handles are reversed from a standard setup.


Flap and gear are different from others, engine controls are standard.



Ah. OK, half of what I'd heard was true. I think I could certainly live w/
the gear & flaps in "different" places--the thought of reversed engine
controls was a deal breaker, but that's apparently not true.

On the gear/flaps--I'm guessing you got used to that pretty quickly and
never give it a second thought. I seem to recall reading somewhere about
that contributing to gear-up on the runway (during a T&G?) or something. I
guess that would only apply to someone brand-new to the airplane or someone
switching between airplanes.

Good food for thought. 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)

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

You have to live thru this to understand. I owned a Cessna Cradinal for a
while. You call or go up to your favorite FBO parts counter and they look
at you strange, they pull out the Cardinal book. You notice it's nearly
brand new looking because it doesn't get used. Does the FBO in Burnt
Scrotum, Nevada even have the books for a Trinidad? If it takes the guy
threee days to figure out what to order you're going to tire quickly of
your bird.


OK, I think I now understand your point--even if the parts have the exact
same availability, it's the human factor (i.e., lack of experience in the
field) that drives the issue. Good point--I hadn't considered that part of
the equation.


My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have to
spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or enjoy
the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.

OK, you're giving me a faster number than I've read. +10kts is not earth
shattering, but certainly noteworthy.

I still wonder about the apples-to-apples of the $50K savings you're talking
about--a few other posters have commented on comparing a 40 year old Bo to a
20 year old Trin. I am trying to be neutral on the subject--I know there
are plenty of '60s airplanes flying, but I also have to believe there's some
intrinsic value to being newer (all things being equal). What would your
airplane go for if it were, say, an '86 model?

The insurance is a point well taken--I have NOT priced insurance on Bos.
May I ask what to expect on that? I was getting quoted ~$2,000 / yr for
$125K hull, $1M/$100K liability, $3K med on the Trin the last time I asked
(around last June).

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)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
. ..
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

Douglas Paterson wrote:

The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
Comanche and toward the Trinidad

You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
is? Holy Cow.

I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing
something objective here?
Let's see....repair costs, parts availability, then he contrasts that with
the real world of parts supply chain from Bonanza.

Hey, you asked for counsel, but it sounds like you already had your mind
made-up.



Not at all! True, I asked for counsel, and I am very appreciative of all
the points of view I've heard here. If I don't understand someone's point,
I'll ask clarifying questions. Subjective views are very welcome, but, in
my position, I need to know to what degree they're backed up by objective
facts. Those points that've been offered up (repair costs, parts
availability, etc.) are still under discussion--with opposing points of view
being offered from various posters.

So--I stand by asking questions where I don't understand. For the record,
Newps himself replied with some clarification (regarding his Cardinal
experience), which I found very helpful to understanding his point.
--
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)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding
metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat,
vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad
discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too.

For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new
Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell
pretty well.


This is (part of) the point I've trying to formulate, both in my posts and
in my own head. There's got to be a reason--hell, even if it's all just a
figment of the resale market's mind--that newer used airplanes cost more
than older. I'm not trying to say or even suggest that there's anything
"wrong" with a '60s vintage airplane--just that there's some value (tangible
and intangible, I'd say) to newer.

Thanks, Thomas, for helping me with this specific concept. In particular,
the design & ergonomics comment is on target.

--
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)

Matt Whiting wrote:
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



It's turned out not to be a problem. A few cracks were found on high
time airframes, thus the AD. The same as the AD for the tail of 182's.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

Does the FBO in Burnt Scrotum, Nevada

BTW, you owe me a new keyboard...!
--
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:



Ah. OK, half of what I'd heard was true. I think I could certainly live w/
the gear & flaps in "different" places--the thought of reversed engine
controls was a deal breaker, but that's apparently not true.



You get used to what you're flying. Personally I like everything to the
left of the yoke, except the gear. That way I can fiddle with anything
I want at any time while telling myself to "stay left of the yoke."

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.

That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.

Watch for me in the NTSB reports...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
Skylane.

That (I believe) is where the perception of a smaller cockpit comes
from. The more laid-back "roadster" seating position of the Cherokee,
versus the "minivan" seating position of the Cessna, makes for a higher
center of gravity (so to speak) in the Skylane, pushing the window
sills down lower in relation to your line of sight. (It also helps
that the windows open right at your elbows.)

This is also why (to me) Cessnas felt like the roof was too low.
Turning in the pattern only accentuated that feeling, as the runway
alternately disappears and reappears... I always felt like I was
flying with my baseball hat brim pulled down too low over my eyes.

In truth, I think the cockpits are pretty comparable in size.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"