Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Douglas Paterson wrote:



My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have to
spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or enjoy
the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.


OK, you're giving me a faster number than I've read. +10kts is not earth
shattering, but certainly noteworthy.

And when it's time to overhaul, the IO-550 is an option for me. Due to
the fact the 550 was certified under newer and much more stringent rules
than the IO-520 I have you get much more than a 15 HP increase. Most
new 550's put out well north of 300 HP installed to be sure they meet
spec and no 520 puts out 285 HP as installed in the aircraft. The
difference is usually in the 40 HP range. The 550 guys are getting
190-195 kts true, so good in fact they can't use all their power in the
colder temps as they are way up in the yellow arc. Plus the 550 gives
you that speed at the same or less fuel flow as the 520, most guys seem
to report about a half gallon or so less fuel flow.




I still wonder about the apples-to-apples of the $50K savings you're talking
about--a few other posters have commented on comparing a 40 year old Bo to a
20 year old Trin.


That's a decision only you can make. I've owned three airplanes now and
I always want the lightest possible plane. The newer you get the more
amenities the manufacturer has added to the interior. Every one adds
weight. The newer interiors sure look like the inside of a car. If
that's what you have to have then you better buy newer. I personally
don't think there's any difference maintenence wise simply because a
plane is twenty years newer. The new one is still at least 20 years old
and the cost to maintain will still largely depend on how it has been
taken care of. Find a hangar queen that's newer and you couldn't print
enough money to keep it airworthy.



I am trying to be neutral on the subject--I know there
are plenty of '60s airplanes flying, but I also have to believe there's some
intrinsic value to being newer (all things being equal). What would your
airplane go for if it were, say, an '86 model?


A hell of a lot more. But what would be the point? I would have less
useful, go slower and it would cost a lot more to operate. Simply
because I insure it for more my premium goes way up. In terms of total
dollars spent the older airplane costs orders of magnitude less.





The insurance is a point well taken--I have NOT priced insurance on Bos.
May I ask what to expect on that?



A year and a half ago when I bought the Bo I had about 1050 hours TT,
almost all in my 182. No retract time at all. $90K hull and insured
for six seats. $2800 the first year. Dropped to $2300 for this year.
I completely forgot to ask to have it insured for four seats only, I'll
do that next renewal. I would expect the premium to be less than $2K
with six seats.