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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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