Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Kyle Boatright wrote:

"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.

I agree. Which is why I questioned Jay's original claim that the 235
was the all-time best four-place single.


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...

It isn't 200 lbs more, and only for a few models of the 235. One data
set published showed the 182 with slightly more useful load. And the
load has to be useful. I wonder how many times a 235 is actually loaded
to gross. I had only a few occasions where my Skylane was at gross. If
you can't reasonably fit the load into the airplane, was is its benefit?
I live well East of the Rockies and fly into a lot of short, grass
fields (well fewer now as my local field was paved last year) and I'd
much rather than the takeoff and climb performance.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:




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.

That is the very definition of a crappy wing.

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.

That comparison chart is wrong in almost every other way. We cruise at
140 knots -- not 133, we climb at 900+ fpm or better, and that service
ceiling is almost laughably wrong. Of course, anything above ~13K is
meaningless without oxygen, but we've been at 13K and were still
climbing smartly. To think it would stop climbing in only another 550
feet is absurd.

Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.
In that regard, a stock Skylane may be a better-performing aircraft
than a stock Pathfinder. On the other hand, are there any 30+ year old
airplanes that are still "stock"?

BTW: I'm not sure where you get your information on a 235 having a
"smaller interior" than a Skylane. Although it's proportioned
differently, I don't think interior space is appreciably different
between the two makes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.

One of the guys at the tower has a 182P, I believe that makes it about a
1973, with all the speed mods, I believe it's called the Flight Bonus.
Looks god awful ugly to me but he gets 145 kts true. I told him nice
job, you guys have $25K more into your plane than mine and I go 25 kts
faster and because of all that crap you've hung on there mine is more
off road worthy.

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


That comparison chart is wrong in almost every other way. We cruise at
140 knots -- not 133, we climb at 900+ fpm or better, and that service
ceiling is almost laughably wrong. Of course, anything above ~13K is
meaningless without oxygen, but we've been at 13K and were still
climbing smartly. To think it would stop climbing in only another 550
feet is absurd.

Now, to be fair, our Pathfinder has every airframe modification ever
made for the type, so I can't say I've ever flown a "stock" Pathfinder.
In that regard, a stock Skylane may be a better-performing aircraft
than a stock Pathfinder. On the other hand, are there any 30+ year old
airplanes that are still "stock"?

If a stock Skylane was faster than a stock 235, then with similar
modifications it would almost certainly remain faster. Do you have any
evidence that the data posted was not correct? If it is, do you have a
source of correct data that compares the two models head-to-head?


BTW: I'm not sure where you get your information on a 235 having a
"smaller interior" than a Skylane. Although it's proportioned
differently, I don't think interior space is appreciably different
between the two makes.

I got it based on owning a 67 Skylane for 6 years and 300+ hours and now
having flown a 67 Arrow for more than 50 hours. I asked earlier if the
fuselage width of the Arrow was the same as the 235 and was told that it
was. The Arrow does not feel nearly as roomy as the Skylane, especially
in cockpit width at shoulder level. I have not yet found any cross
section drawings of either to see what dimensions are where, but the
Arrow feels much tighter to me in shoulder level width and in footwell
space.

It also feels as though the seat is lower to the floor than on the
Skylane. I feel like my feet are more out in front of me than in the
Skylane.

Matt

I doubt you have that much. They useful ALWAYS go down when actually
weighed, and the TRUTH comes out.

Karl
I should talk, my 185 lost 50# of useful when I weighed her. The factories
always lied about aircraft weight, and didn't have to weigh each one.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
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"

I doubt you have that much. They useful ALWAYS go down when actually
weighed, and the TRUTH comes out.

I know.

However, I also know that I NEVER worry about weight & balance, which
is a wonderful thing. Four 200 pound guys, full fuel, 90 degrees?
Right -- let's go!

Let me tell you -- after flying Warriors and Skyhawks, *that* is truly
great.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
However, I also know that I NEVER worry about weight & balance, which
is a wonderful thing. Four 200 pound guys, full fuel, 90 degrees?
Right -- let's go!


NEVER?

"...adding a touch of Paul-power."


Montblack
So far, Atlas gets 30 more lbs of useful load - and counting :-)

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.

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
weight.

Ray Andraka wrote:

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the empty
weight.

Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.