If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Douglas Paterson wrote: Jay: Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful. What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again.... And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load accordingly. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Douglas Paterson wrote: "Don Tuite" wrote in message ... At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Don This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! ) But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set, and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out. The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Don Tuite wrote: All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14 gph fuel consumption, aren't you? I suppose it's possible to run 14 GPH down at sea level if you leave the mixture full in. I burn 8 gph in my 520 in the Bo farting around the local area at 155-160 mph indicated. Don't look at big engine/small engine, look at miles per gallon. Filling 80-gallon tanks with $4.00/gallon fuel? $2.90 around here and falling. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:26:09 -0700, Newps wrote:
Don Tuite wrote: Filling 80-gallon tanks with $4.00/gallon fuel? $2.90 around here and falling. It's down here, too, but I'm anticipating. What's car gas been doing up your way? Here, it's up 30 cents from its late-October nadir and no expectation of a plateau. Don |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Gas is slightly higher now than its low point last fall. It is
currently falling and today it's at $2.11. Go to www.montanagasprices.com to see the price. Substitute any state for montana to see that area. Many areas are well below $2 now. Don Tuite wrote: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:26:09 -0700, Newps wrote: Don Tuite wrote: Filling 80-gallon tanks with $4.00/gallon fuel? $2.90 around here and falling. It's down here, too, but I'm anticipating. What's car gas been doing up your way? Here, it's up 30 cents from its late-October nadir and no expectation of a plateau. Don |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Douglas Paterson wrote: "Don Tuite" wrote in message ... At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Don This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. May I ask *why* you think the Comanche is better than the Trinidad (or the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no offense, Newps! ) But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set, and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out. The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay. If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-) The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to look down is a real pain many a time. Yes, I know the advantage of seeing the runway when in the pattern, but I spend a lot less time in the pattern than I do flying cross country and if you fly a normal rectangular pattern losing sight of the runway for a few seconds in the turns is simply not an issue. Matt |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Matt Whiting wrote: If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-) The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the wing up in the mountains but this is minor. I don't miss the pillbox view out of a 182. That was the first thing I noticed when I got the Bo. I can see 10 times better out of the Bo than the 182, I would really hate to give that up. The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to look down is a real pain many a time. I don't find that to be a big deal. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-) Thats what inverted flight is for ;-) The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the wing up in the mountains but this is minor. I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing. Its been 10 years since I flew anything but the Bonanza, but before that I had some time in a 182 and almost bought a Commanche. The only thing I remember about the 182 was how truck like the handling was, especially in pitch. Probably not a big deal if one is travelling cross country, but sometimes I like a mild yank and bank. My earlier Bonanza is much more fun than that. The Commanche sure was nice looking on the ground, but the view from the inside was like being in a cave. Probably really wasn't that bad the the plane I was looking at had a sort of a dark orange interior that probably didn't help the situation. -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Frank Stutzman wrote: I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing. Yes, I forgot about that. Actually it works better as you can stand up and not hit your head. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche 260
you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable power. Looking specifically at climb and high altitude performance, there is a difference between the Dakota and older Cherokee 235/Pathfinder models with the "Hershey Bar" wing. For example, compare "book" service ceilings: 17,500 ft for the Dakota and only 14,500 for the 235C. The longer wing provides higher L/D, which is what you want if you need to fly high. If you are going to consider RG airplanes in the same performance class as a Dakota or a Cessna 182 then what you are looking at is an Arrow III or IV, a Cessna Cardinal RG, or a 200 HP Mooney. The Mooney is quite a bit faster but all three have service ceilings similar to that of the Dakota. The Arrow III/IV and Dakota provide interesting comparisons because their airframes are of virtually identical dimensions. They boast virtually the same cruise speed and the Arrow service ceiling is just a little lower at 16,200 ft. The useful load of the Dakota is certainly larger, but a good portion of the difference is eaten up in higher fuel requirements if you are flying any distance. If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front Range. -Elliott Drucker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Narrowing it down... Comanche? | Douglas Paterson | Owning | 18 | February 26th 06 12:51 AM |
Cherokee Pilots Association Fly-In Just Gets Better and Better | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 7 | August 8th 05 07:18 PM |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | Piloting | 0 | May 5th 04 08:14 PM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | General Aviation | 0 | March 20th 04 02:15 AM |