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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Don Tuite wrote: At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Yes, that's true. A friend had a Commanche 260. Can't see how you'd ever pick a Commanche over a Bo but everyone's different I guess. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Paul Tomblin wrote: And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk. That's what the 140 was. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In article ,
Newps wrote: And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk. That's what the 140 was. not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more speed, etc than a 150/152 -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com... 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. Jay: Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful. What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again.... 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) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Don Tuite" wrote in message
... At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Don This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! ) 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) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:27:47 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote: In article , Newps wrote: And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk. That's what the 140 was. not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more speed, etc than a 150/152 Part of its problem. The perception when I learned to fly, in '68, was that the PA28-180 was the Piper alternative for the 172's mission. The 140 was neither fish nor fowl, and offered the temptation of two back seats that you could not safely fill with adults. My impression was also that there were far more FBOs with 150s to rent than 140s. My actual experience as a student and renter was at Torrance, but I think it was the same at Hawthorne, Santa Monica and Van Nuys, the other 3 big GA airports on the West side of the LA basin. I do believe that the prevalence of 150 trainers boosted Cessna sales over Piper. My personal impression was that Cessnas were crackerboxes with flight controls that had all the precision of the gearshifter in a VW Microbus, while Piper handling reminded me of steering 1950s Chevy pickups. My favorite rentals were Yankees and the FBO's Luscombe 8E. (I was skinnier then.) Now, almost 40 years later, I'm grateful to fly what I can get my hands on. Don |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:54:48 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote: Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful. What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again.... Thanks! 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. 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? Don |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote: "Don Tuite" wrote in message .. . At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Don This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! ) "Better compared" as in "It is better to compare the Comanche to x and y than to compare it to z." Sorry for the imprecision. Don |
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 |