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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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. -- 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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
from hershey-bar to tapered wing. The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent avionics. Don |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
from hershey-bar to tapered wing. The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent avionics. Actually, it's was pre-'73 235s that had the shorter fuselage. The Dakota (1979 - 1984) is identical to the Pathfinder (1974 - 1978), but with a tapered wing. (I think they may have enlarged the stabilator again, too, but I'm not sure on that.) Prior to '73, the PA28-235 line is (in my opinion) no better than a PA28-180, simply because the back seat is unusable for adults. What good is a 1400 pound useful load, if you can only carry kids and double-amputees? After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet or exceed. That said, a Comanche is a very cool plane. You're right about the costs, though -- they will be higher in every measurable way. Finally, I don't know anything about he Trinidad, other than it looks cool. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote: After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet or exceed. It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day. Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In article ,
Newps wrote: After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did. not necessarily. quite often marketing trumps product superiority. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet or exceed. It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day. Matt There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally trounces the C-182. The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's. A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load, which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of the 182. A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals. The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields. For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better choice. KB |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Kyle Boatright wrote: A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals. Yep, the Lycoming design flaw is putting the camshaft up high. Having a choice between the two it's Continental all the way. Lyc's are famous for eating cams, that's a complete teardown. If you need to fix a cylinder on a Continental you fix a cylinder. For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better choice. No doubt about it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did. Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night. Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Heck, I hadn't heard *anything* about the line prior to researching it, back before buying ours. Toecutter was the guy here who initially clued me in to the awesome performance that can be had for a relatively inexpensive price in the Pathfinder -- and the rest is history. It'll out-perform every other fixed-gear, 4-place aircraft of its day, in almost every performance parameter. If you want to haul four real people, with luggage and full tanks, there just aren't too many other alternatives. -- 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 |