Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
the 1460 in his post?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
the 1460 in his post?

I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.

("john smith" wrote)
I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

John Smith.
For failure to use all available (Google) resources:

You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


Montblack
"Oui" "Oui"

Montblack wrote:
("john smith" wrote)
I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

John Smith.
For failure to use all available (Google) resources:

You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


There's an appropriate line from Cheech & Chong to express my acceptance
of shame, but this is a family forum, so I shall simply respond, "Mea
Culpa! Mea Culpa! [As a Catholic child of the 60's, you should have
learned at least a little Latin. :-)) ]

Anyway... about the Little French Girl...

She has her probationary review in March. If all the stars are
inalignment, she should be flying a regular monthly bid schedule by
April. With luck, we might even see her return to the North 40 this year.

I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

According to that chart, I was off by 10 pounds. ("Only" 1450
pounds...)

Luckily, I just removed an old DME from the panel that weighed about
that much...

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

Jay Honeck wrote:

I think Jay is saying he has 1460 lbs useful load on his airplane.
I question that. I cannot believe he has an additional 230 lbs of useful
load unless there is a drop in the max gross weight between the 235 and
the 236/Dakota. His BEW simply cannot be that much lower.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)


According to that chart, I was off by 10 pounds. ("Only" 1450
pounds...)

So, according to this comparison, the 235 has 145 lbs more useful load,
but is 6 knots slower in cruise, climbs 90 fpm more slowly, has a higher
stall speed, much lower service ceiling (more than 4,000 feet lower!), a
substantially longer takeoff run and a dramatically longer landing run
(more than 2X longer!) as compared to the Skylane. In addition, it has
a smaller cockpit and only one door vs. two. And its value appreciation
is dramatically less than the Skylanes.

So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.


Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.

don't sneeze at cheaper purchase, especially with the higher useful load.

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

Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.


don't sneeze at cheaper purchase, especially with the higher useful load.


I'm not. If those are your primary objectives, then the 235 looks like
the right choice. However, I believe the original claim was just a tad
broader than that. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
snip

So, Jay, tell us again how this is the best 4-place single ever? :-)
It looks better to me in only two categories, useful load and cheaper
purchase due to the lower appreciation over the years.


Matt

It all goes back to your mission.

For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has
more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how
many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?), and/or better short field
performance. A 1400 lb useful load vs 1200 lbs is a big deal, whereas 135
knots vs. 140 isn't...

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:



For most of us East of the Rockies, a 200 lb increase in useful load has
more utility than a few knot increase in cruise speed, a higher ceiling (how
many of us have access to O2 systems, anyway?),


Yes to these.


and/or better short field
performance.


Definitely no to this. Useful load has no bearing whatsoever on takeoff
and climb performance. There's a lot of ground lovers out there with
some pretty good useful numbers.