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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
john smith wrote:
I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane. I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower. I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not. In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty weight. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Ray Andraka wrote:
I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not. In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty weight. Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Newps wrote: Thomas Borchert wrote: Newps, It's just going to cost more all around. More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to really like your Bo... ;-) I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's like shock cooling, more myth than reality. Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive by any measure. 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? Matt |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Dave Butler wrote:
Ray Andraka wrote: I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not. In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty weight. Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum. Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the hershey bar winged models. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
john smith wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Jay Honeck wrote: I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard? 1230 versus 1460 pounds? Sounds like "trounced" to me! Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane? Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out the 1460 in his post? I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane. I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower. That may be the case. I was commenting on your numbers. Matt |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In article , Ray Andraka
wrote: Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum. Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the hershey bar winged models. Over the years, Piper added more sound insulation and the like, adding pounds to the basic empty weight of cherokees. One the readers out there has a cherokee 140 (Jay M?) with a significantly higher useful load than my '74 140, and there are zero differences in dimensions between them. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote: Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense. It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a 1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Thomas Borchert wrote: Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense. It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a 1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane. Even if the airframes are identical, the value won't be given a 15 year difference in age. There are always concerns about corrosion and metal fatigue, for example. I believe it was a member of the Piper family that a few years ago had issues with wing failure due to fatigue. I don't recall the details now, but it seems the airframes had upwards of 9,000 hours of low-level flying in turbulence - pipeline patrol or something like that as I recall. A friend and I were looking recently at an 83 Skyhawk that is in great shape, but has more than 12,000 airframe hours. I believe it was operated by American Flyers or a similar flight school. I was concerned about the hours and what issues this might cause from a metal fatigue perspective. My friend called Cessna and got through to someone in their tech support group. He was told that Cessna 100 series airframes have no life limit and that they know of airframes with well over 30,000 hours on them. I found this a little hard to swallow as I've never seen one for sale with more than about the 12,000 that this 172 has, however, I suppose the military or someone might have some with that many hours. He told my friend that 12,000 hours wasn't anything at all to be concerned about from a fatigue perspective. Matt |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote: Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your leaving from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above you. In the 182 I would take off and then manuver next to the mountains for some lift but would still have to circle back in the valley to get the required altitude to head for home. With the Bo there's no circling required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real world climb and I'm going 30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50 mph faster once levelled out burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip. Yes, and depending on the model of the Bo, you also have anywhere from 30 to 60 more horsepower to play with. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Montblack wrote:
("john smith" wrote) I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane. I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower. http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html 1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down) John Smith. For failure to use all available (Google) resources: You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update! There's an appropriate line from Cheech & Chong to express my acceptance of shame, but this is a family forum, so I shall simply respond, "Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! [As a Catholic child of the 60's, you should have learned at least a little Latin. :-)) ] Anyway... about the Little French Girl... She has her probationary review in March. If all the stars are inalignment, she should be flying a regular monthly bid schedule by April. With luck, we might even see her return to the North 40 this year. |
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 |