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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |