Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Matt Whiting wrote:
Newps wrote:

Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade
off. To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two
seats in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of
runway, 550 feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance.
The real beauty is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your
182/Cherokee, which is really what you're looking for, right, being
there in Colorado?


I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
gradient?



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.




The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.

If I want to go at the same climb speed as I did in my 182, 80 mph, I
would still outclimb the 182. At Schafer I am airborne with gear up in
ground effect before the halfway point, about 1800 feet, I accelrate as
much as possible at about 50 agl and then zoom climb as the 100 foot
trees approcah at the end of the runway, climbing about 2000 fpm for
about 30 seconds and then settling back to 13-1500.

Matt Whiting wrote:

Newps wrote:



Thomas Borchert wrote:

Newps,


It's just going to cost more all around.



More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)



I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.


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


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.

Matt Barrow wrote:



The inverse of price is availability.

No, the inverse is market demand. There's no demand for a Trinidad but
they're new so the price will be high. There's a huge demand for the
182, of most moel years, so their price will be high. There's no
corresponding demand for a 235, their price will be low.

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

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.


Just as I (more or less) predicted in the thread about the Raytheon buyout.


The feeling in the Beech crowd is the new owners will generally be good
for Beech.

Ken Reed wrote:

But they look cool!


Might as well look cool and go fast.


I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.

They weren't. No good off road.

Douglas Paterson wrote:

"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?



I have nothing against the Trinidad, I think it's cool looking. But to
say the Bo isn't what you're looking for but the Trinidad is makes no
sense whatsoever, from an owners point of view.

Douglas Paterson wrote:



Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the flap/gear
handles are reversed from a standard setup.


Flap and gear are different from others, engine controls are standard.

Douglas Paterson wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


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.



Please help me understand this. Are you saying that the Bo (for example)
has parts lying in stock at just about every FBO? I find that hard to
believe. The Socata folks are committed (they say) to a three-day maximum
delivery for parts not in stock (at their service centers--nearest to me is
Phoenix), with lots of stuff in stock "in the system" [source:
http://www.socata.org/html/upload.as...ir craft.pdf].
Is this significantly sub-standard to the situation with Beech parts?


You have to live thru this to understand. I owned a Cessna Cradinal for
a while. You call or go up to your favorite FBO parts counter and they
look at you strange, they pull out the Cardinal book. You notice it's
nearly brand new looking because it doesn't get used. Does the FBO in
Burnt Scrotum, Nevada even have the books for a Trinidad? If it takes
the guy threee days to figure out what to order you're going to tire
quickly of your bird.



Very fast vs $$? I don't follow. The Trins cruise around 160ktas at
12-14gph; the highest numbers I've seen for the Bo is 168ktas at the same
fuel burn.

My S model has a book speed of 178 kts true. I get low 170's on an
everyday basis at your fuel flow example. With the $50K you won't have
to spend on the Trinidad you can really put in there what you like. Or
enjoy the extra $500-$1000 you won't be spending on hull insurance.

Newps,

Mine
is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also the
fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964.


See? We're talking about a plane that's TWICE the age of the oldest
Trinidad you could possibly get. To suggest the two are in the same
league without mentioning this difference, well, makes little sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

("john smith" wrote)
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.


http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...athfinder.html
1974 Piper Pathfinder specs (scroll down)

John Smith.
For failure to use all available (Google) resources:

You are hereby sentenced to ...(1) Little French Girl update!


Montblack
"Oui" "Oui"