Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

On 15-Jan-2007, 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.


The T-Tail on my Arrow IV serves the same function, and it's tall enough for
just about anybody to stand under.

-Elliott Drucker

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
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.


http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasSta...81401&x=7&y=10

Station by station; plug in your own zipcode

We're higher due to being in the midst of ski resorts.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

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
2. Speed
3. Handling.

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

;-)

"If Momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What's your experience been at higher elevation airfields and/or higher
operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....

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

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...

Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...

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

Jay Honeck wrote:

Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...

You were/are!

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote:

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! )

"Better compared" as in "It is better to compare the Comanche to x and
y than to compare it to z." Sorry for the imprecision.

Don


Ah. OK, I see what you meant now.

For the record, I completely agree. I mention the Pathfinder et al with the
Comanche & Trinidad not because I think they're apples-to-apples airplanes.
I include the Pathfinder because it's the only (*only*) fixed-gear aircraft
my research uncovered that met my mission description (I looked hard at the
Cherokee Six [PA-32] line, but decided it was bigger than I wanted or needed
and, largely as a result of that excess size/capacity, provided less
bang/buck than the other options).

When I first started, I'd no idea I'd still be looking a year later.
Circumstances. However, I think it was Day One, Lesson One, in Aircraft
Buying 101, both here and in every book I read, that the best method is to
define your mission first, then pick the plane that fits it. In that
regard, these three planes form a consistent (though hardly all-inclusive)
grouping.
--
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)

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Douglas Paterson wrote:

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.

I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
Bonanza for essentially three reasons:

1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."

2) The reversed controls. Weird again.

3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
pricey to maintain.

Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. 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)

Husky carries only 50 pounds of baggage.

I carry more survival equipment than that!

Karl
Super Cubs N4201Z, N7474D
"Curator" N185KG


"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed, comfort, instruments and on
floats. The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
land short. They are comparably priced.

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...

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.


Interesting comment. That's one thing I find very attractive about the
Trinidad--lots of windows, it feels very "open." Another is the cabin
width--I'm rather broad of shoulder (and none too skinny of waist, if you
catch my drift), the Trinidad feels downright agoraphobic compared to the
Pipers....

The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
Comanche and toward the Trinidad (which is a 180 from where I was last
March). The Pathfinder is the wild card--definitely cheaper to buy, and
almost certainly cheaper to own/operate. Hmmmm.....

Thanks for the thoughts!
--
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)