Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Dave wrote:


I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
these guys are talking about.

The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
about 1965.

No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)

Well, gullibility anyway.

Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
design, or a nice little biz jet.

Gee, which should I get?

D'oh!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Well since the single engine prop is a lot cheaper to operate than the
biz jet, I'd have to opt for the prop if I wanted to fly it very often.
If I didn't fly very often then I probably shouldn't consider the biz
jet, which would require an additional type rating anyway.

I was drooling over some of the L-39s that were coming on the market so
cheaply a while back, but someone (I believe it was Jose) pointed out
how expensive they were to maintain and operate. What good does a
go-fast do me if I can't afford to fly it?



-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Honeck ]
Posted At: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:18 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Subject: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)

Well, gullibility anyway.

Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
design, or a nice little biz jet.

Gee, which should I get?

D'oh!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
design, or a nice little biz jet.

Gee, which should I get?

After shopping for insurance, I suspect you would be getting the 60-year
old single engine prop plane design.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

Jay Honeck wrote:
No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)


Well, gullibility anyway.

Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane
design, or a nice little biz jet.

Gee, which should I get?

D'oh!

Well, it isn't quite that simple. The purchase cost is one thing, but
operational costs live with you forever. Check the insurance costs for
a jet vs. a Bonanza, check the recurrent training requirements for a jet
vs. the single, check the fuel costs, check .... you get the picture.
I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
Bonanza and maybe even higher than that. Sometimes you pay more upfront
to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase,
but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.

Matt

Newps wrote:
Dave wrote:


I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
these guys are talking about.

The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
about 1965.

Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any
newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics.

David Johnson

Matt Whiting wrote:


I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
Bonanza and maybe even higher than that.


25 times more at a bare minimum.



Sometimes you pay more upfront
to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase,
but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.

This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
will always cost more in money.

Dave wrote:

Newps wrote:

Dave wrote:


I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I
fly a B model). I frankly don't know what
these guys are talking about.

The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to
about 1965.


Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any
newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics.

That's different. The straight tails actually have a more effective
vertical stab and rudder than any of the swept tails. However you also
had a smaller elevator, lots of guys with the later small tails, early
60's, wouldn't use 40 flaps without people or other weight in the back.

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:


I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the
Bonanza and maybe even higher than that.



25 times more at a bare minimum.



Sometimes you pay more upfront

to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to
purchase, but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs.


This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
will always cost more in money.

That was my point. Even though a new Bo may cost more than a used Jet,
the Bo's lower operating costs will quickly swamp any purchase price
differential.

Matt

Newps wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.



How far away from the yoke are you? There is a big difference when you
are pulling your arm from close to straight to 90 degrees and when you
start at 90 degrees and have to pull it into your belly. Also I would
bet your upper body strengh is quite a bit more than mine. I stand at
5'2" when I'm lying (5'1 3/4"). A yank for me is a pull for you.

Margy