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)

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

"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)

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

"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)

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

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)

("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

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

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