If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com... We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees. All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas. No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft. Great information, 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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Doug,
I just bought a plane that's not on your short list but two pieces of advice if I may. One - find a plane with the avionics you want. After searching for many months and looking at airplanes, I found that what others had told me is true. The lowest return by far on any improvement you make in an airplane is in the avionics. I don't know why but it is. I got a Garmin 430, garmin audio panel, Stec 50 with alt hold and GPSS roll steering, Sandel 3308, KX155 and some other goodies. BTW - the Sandel 3308 is fantastic. Two - join the type clubs of any airplane your serious about buying. I joined the mooney group, the bonanza group and the cessna group. I don't know if there's a Socata organization but they have an active website at socota.org. Good luck with the search - it's a buyer's market right now. Dave Bonanza M35 Douglas Paterson wrote: Hello, All! About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew. Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche (PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques: The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche, they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other thoughts? The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance) than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts? Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable. -- David Harnitchek, PE |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"dave" wrote in message
. .. I just bought a plane that's not on your short list but two pieces of advice if I may. One - find a plane with the avionics you want. After searching for many months and looking at airplanes, I found that what others had told me is true. The lowest return by far on any improvement you make in an airplane is in the avionics. I don't know why but it is. I got a Garmin 430, garmin audio panel, Stec 50 with alt hold and GPSS roll steering, Sandel 3308, KX155 and some other goodies. BTW - the Sandel 3308 is fantastic. Two - join the type clubs of any airplane your serious about buying. I joined the mooney group, the bonanza group and the cessna group. I don't know if there's a Socata organization but they have an active website at socota.org. Thanks, Dave. I'm in full agreement on both points! -- 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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Douglas Paterson wrote:
Hello, All! The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche, they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other thoughts? I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered but that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that the tb9 is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful of gas we ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at sea level compared to the others. Its a big airframe. However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the other american brands. Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net... I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered but that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that the tb9 is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful of gas we ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at sea level compared to the others. Its a big airframe. However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the other american brands. Agreed on the TB-9's unsuitability for my mission--I eliminated it from consideration long ago. I suppose if I were at a lower elevation it might be a good trainer and/or a cheaper way to build Socata experience, but even then it wouldn't be on my short list for purchase. As to parts, my understanding from the Socata Owners' Forum is that yes, they do originate in Europe, but Socata US (or whatever they call themselves), located in South Florida, has a superb record of customer support and keeping the supply lines open. I won't embarrass myself by calling anything aviation-related "cheap," but I've been led to believe that it's no worse (cost or availability) than any other brand/model. Indeed, I've been told that the Comanche is particularly *expensive* in this regard, since parts are getting harder and harder to find at any price (which is, I believe, the reason the insurance is so much higher?). Factor in the 20-years-newer factor to boot, and I should think "in general" that one would be buying more airframe parts for a Comanche than a Trinidad to begin with.... I've no problem admitting I'm a newbie here--if I'm out to lunch on any of this thought process, please!, set me straight! 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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche 260
you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable power. Looking specifically at climb and high altitude performance, there is a difference between the Dakota and older Cherokee 235/Pathfinder models with the "Hershey Bar" wing. For example, compare "book" service ceilings: 17,500 ft for the Dakota and only 14,500 for the 235C. The longer wing provides higher L/D, which is what you want if you need to fly high. If you are going to consider RG airplanes in the same performance class as a Dakota or a Cessna 182 then what you are looking at is an Arrow III or IV, a Cessna Cardinal RG, or a 200 HP Mooney. The Mooney is quite a bit faster but all three have service ceilings similar to that of the Dakota. The Arrow III/IV and Dakota provide interesting comparisons because their airframes are of virtually identical dimensions. They boast virtually the same cruise speed and the Arrow service ceiling is just a little lower at 16,200 ft. The useful load of the Dakota is certainly larger, but a good portion of the difference is eaten up in higher fuel requirements if you are flying any distance. If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front Range. -Elliott Drucker |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
wrote in message
news:mRVqh.11419$wq.2321@trndny07... As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche 260 you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable power. Understood--see my response to an earlier post, I understand the Pathfinder is odd-man-out in the group I list. I include it as the only fixed-gear that appears to fit my mission description. As to the differences you cite, I definitely like the speed boost, and even a modest boost in climb rate is important at my higher operating altitudes. I'm investigating the Pathfinder primarily for cost reasons--on my first time out, I'd hate to ignore any viable candidate, so if the 235 can do what I need for less money, it will be a real contender that I would have to consider. [snipped good discussion & comparison of various a/c] If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front Range. Considered, definitely. Turbo scares me--too many horror stories, both of overtaxed engines and monster (even by GA standards) maintenance costs. I don't expect "much" flying over the mountains, but who knows? In theory, I agree with you; in practice, I think I'll shy away from turbo my first time out. Trying to "beat" this issue w/ normal aspiration is a large part of why the Comanche and Trinidad are on the list, btw: their 20K' ceilings. I've been told the real-world ceiling of the Comanche is more like 17K' (which still beats the "book" numbers of the others you cite), and the Trinidad apparently really is capable of FL200. Thanks, Elliott--great discussion. Dunno if you recall, but you helped me a great deal when I was first starting here, in particular with understanding the tradeoffs between fixed gear and retracts. Then and now, I appreciate it! -- 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) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
("Douglas Paterson" wrote)
About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew. Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable. What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K? The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other partners? They were asking around $420K. Looks like now $175K (x3) might be closer (loaded + tax) Diamond DA-42 Twin Star. http://www.asijetcenter.com/index.cfm?event=pageview&contentpieceid=1404 AOPA Flight review (Nov 2006) Specs at the bottom The Cool Factor will not fit in a 40' hangar ...44.5' wingspan. Q: Consider, for a moment, if 100LL will be around much longer? A: You won't care. You'll have liquid cooled diesel engines. Q: Parts? A: Warranty! Montblack |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of $574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046 million. Montblack wrote: ("Douglas Paterson" wrote) About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew. Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable. What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K? The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other partners? They were asking around $420K. Looks like now $175K (x3) might be closer (loaded + tax) Diamond DA-42 Twin Star. http://www.asijetcenter.com/index.cfm?event=pageview&contentpieceid=1404 AOPA Flight review (Nov 2006) Specs at the bottom The Cool Factor will not fit in a 40' hangar ...44.5' wingspan. Q: Consider, for a moment, if 100LL will be around much longer? A: You won't care. You'll have liquid cooled diesel engines. Q: Parts? A: Warranty! Montblack |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:02:48 -0700, Newps wrote:
Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron. Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of $574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046 million. Soon as the minimum wage boost cuts in, it'll go right back up. Don |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Narrowing it down... Comanche? | Douglas Paterson | Owning | 18 | February 26th 06 12:51 AM |
Cherokee Pilots Association Fly-In Just Gets Better and Better | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 7 | August 8th 05 07:18 PM |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | Piloting | 0 | May 5th 04 08:14 PM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | General Aviation | 0 | March 20th 04 02:15 AM |