Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...


Jay's a flatlander. The 235 is my choice for Truckee and South Lake
Tahoe. It's especially nice the way you can pop it up into ground
effect by yanking on the flap handle.

OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer
time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind?
Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an
issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement
at high-elevation fields?


All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
gph fuel consumption, aren't you? Filling 80-gallon tanks with
$4.00/gallon fuel?

Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money....

Thanks for the input!!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...

We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've
flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid
City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees.

All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas.

No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft.

Great information, thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

wrote in message
news:mRVqh.11419$wq.2321@trndny07...
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.

Understood--see my response to an earlier post, I understand the Pathfinder
is odd-man-out in the group I list. I include it as the only fixed-gear
that appears to fit my mission description.

As to the differences you cite, I definitely like the speed boost, and even
a modest boost in climb rate is important at my higher operating altitudes.
I'm investigating the Pathfinder primarily for cost reasons--on my first
time out, I'd hate to ignore any viable candidate, so if the 235 can do what
I need for less money, it will be a real contender that I would have to
consider.

[snipped good discussion & comparison of various a/c]


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.

Considered, definitely. Turbo scares me--too many horror stories, both of
overtaxed engines and monster (even by GA standards) maintenance costs. I
don't expect "much" flying over the mountains, but who knows? In theory, I
agree with you; in practice, I think I'll shy away from turbo my first time
out. Trying to "beat" this issue w/ normal aspiration is a large part of
why the Comanche and Trinidad are on the list, btw: their 20K' ceilings.
I've been told the real-world ceiling of the Comanche is more like 17K'
(which still beats the "book" numbers of the others you cite), and the
Trinidad apparently really is capable of FL200.

Thanks, Elliott--great discussion. Dunno if you recall, but you helped me a
great deal when I was first starting here, in particular with understanding
the tradeoffs between fixed gear and retracts. Then and now, I appreciate
it!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:42:05 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote:


OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there?

Field elevations there are around 6000 feet. Surrounding mountains
are high, but no tricky passes like CO, WY, etc.

The difference is between the 235 and Cherokee 180s and 172s Ive flown
into those airports with. With those punier planes, getting out of
the valleys involves hugging the mountain sides to pick up some lift
until you're high enough to go somewhere. With the 235 it's less
dramatic, though you still want to lean for maximum power before you
take off.

Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money....

Sounds like you're being conservative. Good. While I'm typing, let
me give you some numbers.

I belong to a club with 11 members and two airplanes: a '67 235 and a
'73 PA-28-180 Challenger. We've had the 235 for well over a decade,
and the 180 for a year and a half. (Had a 172 before that, but people
hardly ever flew it.)

We have monthly dues to cover fixed costs (hangar, tiedown, insurance)
and hourly rates for variable costs, including fuel, engine reserve,
and maintenance based on historical data on these particular aircraft.

The mechanic who does most of the routine maintenance has a very low
hourly rate, which skews things a little to the cheap side. (OTOH,
right now, we're all working off an assessment that's paying for an
early major following a prop strike on the 180.)

But by May, the assessment will be over. Based on historical numbers,
and assuming fuel near $4.00, the club treasurer figures we ought to
be charging $77 for the 180 and $100 for the 235, tach time, wet. At
those rates, the 180 will be subsidizing the 235, but if we were to
keep the 235 at $117, where it is now, and lowered the rate on the
180, the 235 probably wouldn't fly enough.

As a reality check, a big local club West Valley) has a Dakota that
goes for $140 (Hobbs, Wet)

So your spreadsheet ought to put you somewhere in that ballpark.

Don

Jay Honeck wrote:

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.


While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of
the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the
answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is,
then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


2. Speed

Not much difference.


3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is
more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is
very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls
are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
prop in about the same distance.

Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
laughing...

What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?


Matt

Newps wrote:
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.


But they look cool!

Matt,

All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.

PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.


While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of the
Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the answeris
yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is, then it is
simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


2. Speed

Not much difference.


3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of Cessna's.
I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is more responsive
in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is very stiff and
sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls are better
balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt

1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.

If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

2. Speed

Not much difference.

Depends on the bird.

3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's.

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)

If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Right on the money Jay,
It is almost a better ride in the back than in the front.
Loads of leg room with the extra 5" in the cabin length.
But when in the back I shut my eyes most of the time ;-)

In any case I would not fly in a high winger in case the cabin dropped off
the wings;-)
I will now put my fireproof coveralls on and the shields are already up !!

--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
1. Useful load

Our club Arrow has a pretty high useful load, but it is academic as you
can't fit anyone bigger than a midget in the back seat.

If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.

2. Speed

Not much difference.

Depends on the bird.

3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's.

With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.

And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)

If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"