Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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"

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.

That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.

Watch for me in the NTSB reports...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.


This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.

Newps wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:

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.



That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.


This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.

That was my experience also. And I flew my 182 often alone with the cg
pretty far forward. If I trimmed for 80 MPH I found that after dropping
flaps 40, the force required to flare was not bad at all. Definitely
attainable with two fingers.

Matt

Newps wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:

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.



That's awesome! I may just try that technique myself, just to see how
it works.


This I don't understand. With just myself in my old 182 the CG is
pretty far forward. Properly trimmed it's a two finger operation to
flare. If you have to yank it you're really doing something wrong.



How far away from the yoke are you? There is a big difference when you
are pulling your arm from close to straight to 90 degrees and when you
start at 90 degrees and have to pull it into your belly. Also I would
bet your upper body strengh is quite a bit more than mine. I stand at
5'2" when I'm lying (5'1 3/4"). A yank for me is a pull for you.

Margy

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