Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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.

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.