Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

john smith wrote:


I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
weight.

Ray Andraka wrote:

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
weight.

Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

Newps wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem
to really like your Bo... ;-)




I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.



Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't
inexpensive by any measure.



It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I paid
$88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.

Do you have a 35? 36?

Matt

Dave Butler wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote:

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the
empty weight.


Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
hershey bar winged models.

john smith wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?



1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!


Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the
Skylane? Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you
point out the 1460 in his post?


I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

That may be the case. I was commenting on your numbers.

Matt

In article , Ray Andraka
wrote:

Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
hershey bar winged models.

Over the years, Piper added more sound insulation and the like, adding pounds
to the basic empty weight of cherokees. One the readers out there has a
cherokee 140 (Jay M?) with a significantly higher useful load than my '74 140,
and there are zero differences in dimensions between them.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.

See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:


Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.

See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.


It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

Even if the airframes are identical, the value won't be given a 15 year
difference in age. There are always concerns about corrosion and metal
fatigue, for example.

I believe it was a member of the Piper family that a few years ago had
issues with wing failure due to fatigue. I don't recall the details
now, but it seems the airframes had upwards of 9,000 hours of low-level
flying in turbulence - pipeline patrol or something like that as I recall.

A friend and I were looking recently at an 83 Skyhawk that is in great
shape, but has more than 12,000 airframe hours. I believe it was
operated by American Flyers or a similar flight school. I was concerned
about the hours and what issues this might cause from a metal fatigue
perspective. My friend called Cessna and got through to someone in
their tech support group. He was told that Cessna 100 series airframes
have no life limit and that they know of airframes with well over 30,000
hours on them. I found this a little hard to swallow as I've never
seen one for sale with more than about the 12,000 that this 172 has,
however, I suppose the military or someone might have some with that
many hours. He told my friend that 12,000 hours wasn't anything at all
to be concerned about from a fatigue perspective.


Matt

Newps wrote:
Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your leaving
from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above you. In the
182 I would take off and then manuver next to the mountains for some
lift but would still have to circle back in the valley to get the
required altitude to head for home. With the Bo there's no circling
required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real world climb and I'm going
30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50 mph faster once levelled out
burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip.

Yes, and depending on the model of the Bo, you also have anywhere from
30 to 60 more horsepower to play with.

Montblack wrote:
("john smith" wrote)
I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

John Smith.
For failure to use all available (Google) resources:

You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


There's an appropriate line from Cheech & Chong to express my acceptance
of shame, but this is a family forum, so I shall simply respond, "Mea
Culpa! Mea Culpa! [As a Catholic child of the 60's, you should have
learned at least a little Latin. :-)) ]

Anyway... about the Little French Girl...

She has her probationary review in March. If all the stars are
inalignment, she should be flying a regular monthly bid schedule by
April. With luck, we might even see her return to the North 40 this year.