Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?

1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.

Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.

Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

We are happy owners of a 150 hp Warrior...

We loved our Warrior -- it was a sweet plane, and your mods sound
great. If it was just Mary and me, we'd have likely kept it forever.

Unfortunately, there is no substitute for horsepower when you've got
two growing teenagers. When we couldn't get off the ground anymore on
a hot day, we knew it was time to look for something bigger. The
Pathfinder has been our perfect solution.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
$574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
million.

That's absurd. What kind of a dolt would pay that kind of money for
what amounts to a brand-new antique? You can buy a perfectly good
used biz-jet for those prices!

It would certainly take an unusual combination of money and gullibility
-- which (I suppose) explains why Beech sells so few of them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt,

Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.


IMHO, we're comparing apples and oranges here. You won't find a Trinidad
older than mid-80s, since they weren't built before. Now compare the price
of a late-80s Bo to a Trinidad. See?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay Honeck wrote:

I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
a Trinidad. :-)


Although our Pathfinder is a very fine looking plane, I'd have to give
the styling edge to the Trinidad.

But I wouldn't trade Atlas for one, even up.

I don't like the way the lines don't seem to "line up" on the windows
and I don't like the looks at all of the tail at all with the rudder so
far forward compared to the elevator. It just looks like parts to stuck
on rather than designed in.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.


Be careful when doing these comparisons -- the pre-'73 PA28-235 is a
completely different plane than the Charger/Pathfinder/Dakota, due to
their shorter fuselage and smaller stabilator.

Pre-'73 235s can be had relatively cheaply (compared to a 182) because
they aren't comparable aircraft. Post-'73 -235s and -236s have held
their value quite well, and are comparable to the Skylane in every way.

They make 245s with two doors, a wide cockpit and a high wing? :-)

If not, they aren't comparable to a 182 in every way or even the ways
important to me.

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
the 1460 in his post?

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?


1230 versus 1460 pounds?

Sounds like "trounced" to me!

Where is the 1460? I see 1222 for the Dakota and 1230 for the Skylane?
Looks like a small win for the Skylane if anything. Can you point out
the 1460 in his post?

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.

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
. ..
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

Douglas Paterson wrote:

The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
Comanche and toward the Trinidad

You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad is?
Holy Cow.

I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing
something objective here?
Let's see....repair costs, parts availability, then he contrasts that with
the real world of parts supply chain from Bonanza.

Hey, you asked for counsel, but it sounds like you already had your mind
made-up.

Matt Barrow
Beech 36-TN