Jay Honeck wrote:

So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
(more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two. And its value appreciation
is dramatically less than the Skylanes.


That comparison chart is wrong in almost every other way. We cruise at
140 knots -- not 133, we climb at 900+ fpm or better, and that service
ceiling is almost laughably wrong. Of course, anything above ~13K is
meaningless without oxygen, but we've been at 13K and were still
climbing smartly. To think it would stop climbing in only another 550
feet is absurd.

Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.
In that regard, a stock Skylane may be a better-performing aircraft
than a stock Pathfinder. On the other hand, are there any 30+ year old
airplanes that are still "stock"?

If a stock Skylane was faster than a stock 235, then with similar
modifications it would almost certainly remain faster. Do you have any
evidence that the data posted was not correct? If it is, do you have a
source of correct data that compares the two models head-to-head?


BTW: I'm not sure where you get your information on a 235 having a
"smaller interior" than a Skylane. Although it's proportioned
differently, I don't think interior space is appreciably different
between the two makes.

I got it based on owning a 67 Skylane for 6 years and 300+ hours and now
having flown a 67 Arrow for more than 50 hours. I asked earlier if the
fuselage width of the Arrow was the same as the 235 and was told that it
was. The Arrow does not feel nearly as roomy as the Skylane, especially
in cockpit width at shoulder level. I have not yet found any cross
section drawings of either to see what dimensions are where, but the
Arrow feels much tighter to me in shoulder level width and in footwell
space.

It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
Skylane.

Matt