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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Dave wrote: I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I fly a B model). I frankly don't know what these guys are talking about. The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to about 1965. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-)
Well, gullibility anyway. Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane design, or a nice little biz jet. Gee, which should I get? D'oh! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Well since the single engine prop is a lot cheaper to operate than the
biz jet, I'd have to opt for the prop if I wanted to fly it very often. If I didn't fly very often then I probably shouldn't consider the biz jet, which would require an additional type rating anyway. I was drooling over some of the L-39s that were coming on the market so cheaply a while back, but someone (I believe it was Jose) pointed out how expensive they were to maintain and operate. What good does a go-fast do me if I can't afford to fly it? -----Original Message----- From: Jay Honeck ] Posted At: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:18 PM Posted To: rec.aviation.owning Conversation: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche Subject: Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-) Well, gullibility anyway. Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane design, or a nice little biz jet. Gee, which should I get? D'oh! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane design, or a nice little biz jet. Gee, which should I get? After shopping for insurance, I suspect you would be getting the 60-year old single engine prop plane design. -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
No, I'm guessing just a lack of money and gullibility. :-) Well, gullibility anyway. Let's see...I can either buy a 60-year old single engine prop plane design, or a nice little biz jet. Gee, which should I get? D'oh! Well, it isn't quite that simple. The purchase cost is one thing, but operational costs live with you forever. Check the insurance costs for a jet vs. a Bonanza, check the recurrent training requirements for a jet vs. the single, check the fuel costs, check .... you get the picture. I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the Bonanza and maybe even higher than that. Sometimes you pay more upfront to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase, but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs. Matt |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote: Dave wrote: I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I fly a B model). I frankly don't know what these guys are talking about. The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to about 1965. Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics. David Johnson |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Matt Whiting wrote: I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the Bonanza and maybe even higher than that. 25 times more at a bare minimum. Sometimes you pay more upfront to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase, but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs. This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but will always cost more in money. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Dave wrote: Newps wrote: Dave wrote: I'm wondering if there is a difference between older and newer 182s (I fly a B model). I frankly don't know what these guys are talking about. The small tail birds flew a little different. The small tail went up to about 1965. Mine (1959) is the last of the straight tails. I haven't flown any newer 182s, so can't comment on their flying characteristics. That's different. The straight tails actually have a more effective vertical stab and rudder than any of the swept tails. However you also had a smaller elevator, lots of guys with the later small tails, early 60's, wouldn't use 40 flaps without people or other weight in the back. |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: I'll bet the operating costs for the Jet are at least 4X more than the Bonanza and maybe even higher than that. 25 times more at a bare minimum. Sometimes you pay more upfront to save later. Just as with most hybrid cars costing more to purchase, but paying you back (hopefully) with lower operating costs. This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but will always cost more in money. That was my point. Even though a new Bo may cost more than a used Jet, the Bo's lower operating costs will quickly swamp any purchase price differential. Matt |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote: I taught myself the "short women landing a 182" trick and my instructor wanted to throttle me. I trimmed it for the flare and pushed it forward on short final. I didn't have the arm strength to yank it into the flare if I was sitting close enough to reach the rudder. About a month later Rod Machado wrote up pretty much what I had figured out. That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how it works. This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong. How far away from the yoke are you? There is a big difference when you are pulling your arm from close to straight to 90 degrees and when you start at 90 degrees and have to pull it into your belly. Also I would bet your upper body strengh is quite a bit more than mine. I stand at 5'2" when I'm lying (5'1 3/4"). A yank for me is a pull for you. Margy |
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 |