Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.

That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.

Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
*yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
know you can trim out most of that force...)

Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
would never have liked it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Newps wrote:



Douglas Paterson wrote:


I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
Bonanza for essentially three reasons:

1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially
my first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

\


Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just
gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to
swap out.

If my wife was that big ... it wouldn't be the controls I'd be swapping!
:-)

Matt

Newps wrote:

Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off.
To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats
in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550
feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty
is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which
is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado?

I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
gradient? The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.


Matt

B A R R Y wrote:

Newps wrote:

The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes
time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to
pay.



But they look cool!

I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
a Trinidad. :-)

Matt

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.


Matt

Doug,
Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons.
1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The
throw over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything
else in a Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have
to. It's like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised
at how smooth and robust the controls are.

2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza
there's really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what
it means. The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all
clearly identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the
stick in my right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in
the right hand as it is in most side by side airplanes.

3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less
than 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly
to maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber
flap bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for
$400.00. You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts
cost - labor is labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance
will be stuff that is common not Beech specific-engine, radio,
instruments, tires, brakes, fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc.

Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you
think. It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't
own or don't like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I
let my friends talk me into at least flying one before I bought
something else.

Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for
me was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and
spoke to the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess
mechanics speak a special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get
better information from other mechanics than I could have. Finally
when we had what we thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection
for me.
I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck.
Dave
M35


Douglas Paterson wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...

Douglas Paterson wrote:

the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
offense, Newps! )
But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers.

I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
Bonanza for essentially three reasons:

1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

2) The reversed controls. Weird again.

3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
pricey to maintain.

Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. Thanks for the
input!

Roy N5804F wrote:


Matt,

All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.

PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

Probably depends on what size you are. I'm shorter than you (6' even),
but I weight 225 lbs and am not all that fat. I worked as a logger for
6 years during high school and college and have fairly broad shoulders.
I find the Arrow barely comfortable with another person anywhere near
my size in the right seat. The Skylane was plenty roomy. I don't know
the exact measurements, but the Arrow feels even narrower to me than a
Skyhawk, but it may be part illusion with the roof curving over my head.
I flew several 4.5 hour legs in my 182, but I find 1.5 hours in the
Arrow to be a long time.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.


If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

Yes, it is a 67 and is basically a two passenger commercial pilot trainer.


With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

My 67 Skylane was not much heavier in pitch than the 67 Arrow I fly now,
especially at forward CG as when I'm flying alone or with two in the
front seat.

I'd always heard how heavy Skylane's were in pitch and how easy it was
to land on the nosewheel. I found this to be pure bunk. I demonstrated
to a skeptic that I could flare and land with two fingers. And I had
capacity left over with two fingers. I could probably have landed with
one, but I felt that was too risky if I slipped. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.


Matt

john smith wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?


For comparison purposes

from my PA28-236/Dakota manual...

Vx = 73 kts
Vy = 85 kts
Vs = 56 kts / flaps 40
= 65 kts / flaps 0

Total fuel = 77 gal
Usuable fuel = 72 gal
* the 236 is a taper wing with two fuel tanks, the 235 is a straight
Hershey bar wing with four fuel tanks

Max gross wt = 3000 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3011 lbs
For the airplane I flew, BEW = 1789 lbs, or 1222 lbs useful load

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The C182R that I fly, the manual lists the following...

Vx = 59 kts
Vy = 81 kts
Vs = 40 kts / flaps 40
= 50 kts / flaps 0

Total fuel = 92 gal
Usable fuel = 88 gal

Max gross wt = 3100 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3110
For this airplane, BEW =1880, or 1230 lbs useful load

I really question then the claim that the takeoff and landing roll of
the 235/6 is even close to the 182. 15 knots difference in stall is
huge. I know I was amazed at the difference between my Skylane and the
Arrow. The stall isn't a lot higher, but Vx and Vy are much higher.

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


Matt

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


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.

The inverse of price is availability.