Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Jay Honeck wrote:


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.

It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.

Matt


There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.

The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.

A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.

A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.

For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.

I fly into a number of grass strips and fields with narrow runways and
lots of snow in the winter (well MOST winters anyway!). The Skylane is
far superior in these conditions. Also, I can much more easily find
emergency landing areas when I can see downward. The Arrow I fly now is
a real pain in this regard.

Does the 235 had a different fuselage design than the other Cherokee
family members? I find the Chrokee 180s and the Arrow I currently fly
to be very tight in shoulder width compared the the 182 I owned. And
having only one door that opens the cockpit to rain (at least it is on
the passengers seat!) is a real pain in bad weather. Nothing as nice as
running through the rain to my 182 and then loading up in a leisurely
manner under the protection of the wing. And you just can't beat having
two large doors.

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.

To say that one airplane is "best" is just stupid as it all depends on
your mission.

Matt

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.

While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load
2. Speed
3. Handling.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

;-)

"If Momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.


While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of
the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the
answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is,
then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


2. Speed

Not much difference.


3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is
more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is
very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls
are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt

Matt,

All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.

PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.


While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of the
Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the answeris
yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is, then it is
simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


2. Speed

Not much difference.


3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's.
I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is more responsive
in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is very stiff and
sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls are better
balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt

Roy N5804F wrote:


Matt,

All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.

PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

Probably depends on what size you are. I'm shorter than you (6' even),
but I weight 225 lbs and am not all that fat. I worked as a logger for
6 years during high school and college and have fairly broad shoulders.
I find the Arrow barely comfortable with another person anywhere near
my size in the right seat. The Skylane was plenty roomy. I don't know
the exact measurements, but the Arrow feels even narrower to me than a
Skyhawk, but it may be part illusion with the roof curving over my head.
I flew several 4.5 hour legs in my 182, but I find 1.5 hours in the
Arrow to be a long time.


Matt

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.

If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

2. Speed

Not much difference.

Depends on the bird.

3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's.

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)

If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Right on the money Jay,
It is almost a better ride in the back than in the front.
Loads of leg room with the extra 5" in the cabin length.
But when in the back I shut my eyes most of the time ;-)

In any case I would not fly in a high winger in case the cabin dropped off
the wings;-)
I will now put my fireproof coveralls on and the shields are already up !!

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.

If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

2. Speed

Not much difference.

Depends on the bird.

3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's.

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)

If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.

C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.

That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.

Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
*yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
know you can trim out most of that force...)

Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
would never have liked it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.


That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.

Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
*yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
know you can trim out most of that force...)

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.

Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
would never have liked it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"