Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

On 17-Jan-2007, Ray Andraka wrote:

I believe it. The dakota has the tapered wing where the 235 does not.
In the case of a PA32, the tapered wing adds about 200lbs to the
empty weight.


Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
hershey bar winged models.


In the PA-28 evolution there were two factors that affected empty weight of
a given model. One was wing length (not necessarily tapered vs.
Hershey-bar) and the other was cabin length. As many have pointed out, in
the early '70s the various models (except the 140) each got a stretch of
about 5 inches in addition to longer wings. Taken TOGETHER the two changes
typically increased empty weight by between 130 and 180 lbs. HOWEVER, most
of the increase was offset by corresponding increases in MGW. Performance
didn't really suffer too much because of the higher L/D of the longer wings.

Here are some examples, with weights from Piper's technical specs:

Arrow 200 (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1459, MGW
2600, useful load 1199
Arrow II (stretched cabin, short wing); Empty weight 1523, MGW 2650,
useful load 1137
Arrow III/IV (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1637, MGW
2750, useful load 1113

Cherokee 235D (short cabin, short Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1467, MGW
2900, useful load 1433
Pathfinder (stretched cabin, long Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1592, MGW
3000, useful load 1408
Dakota (stretched cabin, long tapered wing); Empty weight 1608, MGW 3000,
useful load 1392

Note that a change (between Pathfinder and Dakota) from Hershey-bar to
tapered wing only resulted in a 16 lb change in empty weight.

Also note, of course, that these empty weights reflect airplanes with no
"optional" equipment like radios and other goodies, so typical empty weights
will be higher

-Elliott Drucker

Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not have an
autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much and I
paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.


Do you have a 35? 36?

It's a real Bonanza, a 35.

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , Ray Andraka
wrote:


Hmmm. If I did my numbers right, that's about 1.2 cubic feet of
aluminum. Seems like a lot of aluminum.

Well, the tapered wings are a few feet longer, the fiberglass tip tanks
are replaced with a second set of aluminum tanks, and who knows what
else was changed on the airframe to accommodate the tapered wings. The
point is the tapered winged models run about 200 lbs more than the
hershey bar winged models.


Over the years, Piper added more sound insulation and the like, adding pounds
to the basic empty weight of cherokees.



Yeah, but 200 pounds? That's terrible. I'm ****ed because I have a 22
pound lead weight in the nose for CG purposes.

john smith wrote:



Newps wrote:

Yep, the test was when we left Schafer Maedows last July. Your
leaving from the valley floor with the mountains 4-5000 feet above
you. In the 182 I would take off and then manuver next to the
mountains for some lift but would still have to circle back in the
valley to get the required altitude to head for home. With the Bo
there's no circling required. I've got about 4-500 fpm more real
world climb and I'm going 30-40 mph faster in the climb as well as 50
mph faster once levelled out burning less gas on that 470 nm round trip.


Yes, and depending on the model of the Bo, you also have anywhere from
30 to 60 more horsepower to play with.



Right, and also up to 50 less horsepower, depending on the model.

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.

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.

wrote:


Pathfinder (stretched cabin, long Hershey-bar wing); Empty weight 1592, MGW
3000, useful load 1408


Sounds like Jay better weigh his plane. Otherwise he will be the first
owner ever to have more useful load than the factory advertised spec.

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)

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much
and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.



Do you have a 35? 36?


It's a real Bonanza, a 35.


The one where the tail falls off? :-)

Matt

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