Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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)

Douglas,

In particular,
the design & ergonomics comment is on target.


Thanks. Just the visibility out of a modern design (Trinidad, even more
the Cirrus and WAY more the DA-40/42) blows you away.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)