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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Don Tuite" wrote in message
... Jay's a flatlander. The 235 is my choice for Truckee and South Lake Tahoe. It's especially nice the way you can pop it up into ground effect by yanking on the flap handle. OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind? Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement at high-elevation fields? All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14 gph fuel consumption, aren't you? Filling 80-gallon tanks with $4.00/gallon fuel? Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal, assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a "worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12 gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... Thanks for the input!! -- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com... We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees. All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas. No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft. Great information, thanks! -- Doug "Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone" (my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change to contact me) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
wrote in message
news:mRVqh.11419$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) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:42:05 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote: OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Field elevations there are around 6000 feet. Surrounding mountains are high, but no tricky passes like CO, WY, etc. The difference is between the 235 and Cherokee 180s and 172s Ive flown into those airports with. With those punier planes, getting out of the valleys involves hugging the mountain sides to pick up some lift until you're high enough to go somewhere. With the 235 it's less dramatic, though you still want to lean for maximum power before you take off. Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal, assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a "worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12 gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... Sounds like you're being conservative. Good. While I'm typing, let me give you some numbers. I belong to a club with 11 members and two airplanes: a '67 235 and a '73 PA-28-180 Challenger. We've had the 235 for well over a decade, and the 180 for a year and a half. (Had a 172 before that, but people hardly ever flew it.) We have monthly dues to cover fixed costs (hangar, tiedown, insurance) and hourly rates for variable costs, including fuel, engine reserve, and maintenance based on historical data on these particular aircraft. The mechanic who does most of the routine maintenance has a very low hourly rate, which skews things a little to the cheap side. (OTOH, right now, we're all working off an assessment that's paying for an early major following a prop strike on the 180.) But by May, the assessment will be over. Based on historical numbers, and assuming fuel near $4.00, the club treasurer figures we ought to be charging $77 for the 180 and $100 for the 235, tach time, wet. At those rates, the 180 will be subsidizing the 235, but if we were to keep the 235 at $117, where it is now, and lowered the rate on the 180, the 235 probably wouldn't fly enough. As a reality check, a big local club West Valley) has a Dakota that goes for $140 (Hobbs, Wet) So your spreadsheet ought to put you somewhere in that ballpark. Don |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a 235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky, like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice. While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane: 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. You'd have to carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is, then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling. 2. Speed Not much difference. 3. Handling. I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-) And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a 182... That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-) Matt |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load accordingly. With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools -- a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the prop in about the same distance. Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks. However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there laughing... What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder? Matt |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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. -- Roy Piper Archer N5804F "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a 235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky, like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice. While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane: 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. You'd have to carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is, then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling. 2. Speed Not much difference. 3. Handling. I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-) And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a 182... That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-) Matt |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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. 2. Speed Not much difference. Depends on the bird. 3. Handling. I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's. 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. 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. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Right on the money Jay, It is almost a better ride in the back than in the front. Loads of leg room with the extra 5" in the cabin length. But when in the back I shut my eyes most of the time ;-) In any case I would not fly in a high winger in case the cabin dropped off the wings;-) I will now put my fireproof coveralls on and the shields are already up !! -- Roy Piper Archer N5804F "Jay Honeck" wrote in message ps.com... 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. 2. Speed Not much difference. Depends on the bird. 3. Handling. I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's. 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. 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. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
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 |