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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On 17-Jan-2007, 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. In the PA-28 evolution there were two factors that affected empty weight of a given model. One was wing length (not necessarily tapered vs. Hershey-bar) and the other was cabin length. As many have pointed out, in the early '70s the various models (except the 140) each got a stretch of about 5 inches in addition to longer wings. Taken TOGETHER the two changes typically increased empty weight by between 130 and 180 lbs. HOWEVER, most of the increase was offset by corresponding increases in MGW. Performance didn't really suffer too much because of the higher L/D of the longer wings. Here are some examples, with weights from Piper's technical specs: Arrow 200 (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1459, MGW 2600, useful load 1199 Arrow II (stretched cabin, short wing); Empty weight 1523, MGW 2650, useful load 1137 Arrow III/IV (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1637, MGW 2750, useful load 1113 Cherokee 235D (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1467, MGW 2900, useful load 1433 Pathfinder (stretched cabin, long Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1592, MGW 3000, useful load 1408 Dakota (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1608, MGW 3000, useful load 1392 Note that a change (between Pathfinder and Dakota) from Hershey-bar to tapered wing only resulted in a 16 lb change in empty weight. Also note, of course, that these empty weights reflect airplanes with no "optional" equipment like radios and other goodies, so typical empty weights will be higher -Elliott Drucker |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Matt Whiting wrote: 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? It's a real Bonanza, a 35. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Bob Noel wrote: 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. Yeah, but 200 pounds? That's terrible. I'm ****ed because I have a 22 pound lead weight in the nose for CG purposes. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
john smith wrote: 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. Right, and also up to 50 less horsepower, depending on the model. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Matt Whiting 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. That is the very definition of a crappy wing. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Kyle Boatright wrote: For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?), Yes to these. and/or better short field performance. Definitely no to this. Useful load has no bearing whatsoever on takeoff and climb performance. There's a lot of ground lovers out there with some pretty good useful numbers. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Bob,
Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a 1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane. For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat, vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too. For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell pretty well. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: 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? It's a real Bonanza, a 35. The one where the tail falls off? :-) Matt |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Bob Noel wrote:
In article , Matt Whiting wrote: So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-) It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years. don't sneeze at cheaper purchase, especially with the higher useful load. I'm not. If those are your primary objectives, then the 235 looks like the right choice. However, I believe the original claim was just a tad broader than that. :-) 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 |