Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Matt Whiting wrote:
Newps wrote:

Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade
off. To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two
seats in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of
runway, 550 feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance.
The real beauty is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your
182/Cherokee, which is really what you're looking for, right, being
there in Colorado?


I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
gradient?



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.




The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.

If I want to go at the same climb speed as I did in my 182, 80 mph, I
would still outclimb the 182. At Schafer I am airborne with gear up in
ground effect before the halfway point, about 1800 feet, I accelrate as
much as possible at about 50 agl and then zoom climb as the 100 foot
trees approcah at the end of the runway, climbing about 2000 fpm for
about 30 seconds and then settling back to 13-1500.