Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)

I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.

Newps wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)


I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.

Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.


Matt

Matt,

Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.


IMHO, we're comparing apples and oranges here. You won't find a Trinidad
older than mid-80s, since they weren't built before. Now compare the price
of a late-80s Bo to a Trinidad. See?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting wrote:

Newps wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)



I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.


Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.


It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I paid
$88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.

Newps,

Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.


See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.

See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:


Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.

See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.


It wouldn't be that bad if the '64 model is essentially the same as
the '84 model, except for age. Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.

Even if the airframes are identical, the value won't be given a 15 year
difference in age. There are always concerns about corrosion and metal
fatigue, for example.

I believe it was a member of the Piper family that a few years ago had
issues with wing failure due to fatigue. I don't recall the details
now, but it seems the airframes had upwards of 9,000 hours of low-level
flying in turbulence - pipeline patrol or something like that as I recall.

A friend and I were looking recently at an 83 Skyhawk that is in great
shape, but has more than 12,000 airframe hours. I believe it was
operated by American Flyers or a similar flight school. I was concerned
about the hours and what issues this might cause from a metal fatigue
perspective. My friend called Cessna and got through to someone in
their tech support group. He was told that Cessna 100 series airframes
have no life limit and that they know of airframes with well over 30,000
hours on them. I found this a little hard to swallow as I've never
seen one for sale with more than about the 12,000 that this 172 has,
however, I suppose the military or someone might have some with that
many hours. He told my friend that 12,000 hours wasn't anything at all
to be concerned about from a fatigue perspective.


Matt

Bob,

Kind of like a 1976 warrior vs a
1991 warrior, pretty much the same airplane.


For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding
metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat,
vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad
discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too.

For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new
Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell
pretty well.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

For you, maybe. For others, there are 15 years of flexing and corroding
metal, 15 years of hard landings, 15 years of the stench of sweat,
vomit and whatever else. And coming back to the Bo vs. Trinidad
discussion: There's 40plus years of design and ergonomics, too.

For some, the above doesn't matter. For some, it does. That's why new
Cessnas that aren't really new from the perspective you take sell
pretty well.


This is (part of) the point I've trying to formulate, both in my posts and
in my own head. There's got to be a reason--hell, even if it's all just a
figment of the resale market's mind--that newer used airplanes cost more
than older. I'm not trying to say or even suggest that there's anything
"wrong" with a '60s vintage airplane--just that there's some value (tangible
and intangible, I'd say) to newer.

Thanks, Thomas, for helping me with this specific concept. In particular,
the design & ergonomics comment is on target.

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

Newps wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem
to really like your Bo... ;-)




I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.



Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't
inexpensive by any measure.



It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe. Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I paid
$88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.

Do you have a 35? 36?

Matt