Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

Yes, it is a 67 and is basically a two passenger commercial pilot trainer.


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.

My 67 Skylane was not much heavier in pitch than the 67 Arrow I fly now,
especially at forward CG as when I'm flying alone or with two in the
front seat.

I'd always heard how heavy Skylane's were in pitch and how easy it was
to land on the nosewheel. I found this to be pure bunk. I demonstrated
to a skeptic that I could flare and land with two fingers. And I had
capacity left over with two fingers. I could probably have landed with
one, but I felt that was too risky if I slipped. :-)


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.

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.


Matt

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.

Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.

Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.


Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.

Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.

They make 245s with two doors, a wide cockpit and a high wing? :-)

If not, they aren't comparable to a 182 in every way or even the ways
important to me.

Matt