Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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

After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
or exceed.

It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.

Matt

There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.

The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.

A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.

A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.

For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:


A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

Yep, the Lycoming design flaw is putting the camshaft up high. Having a
choice between the two it's Continental all the way. Lyc's are famous
for eating cams, that's a complete teardown. If you need to fix a
cylinder on a Continental you fix a cylinder.




For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.

No doubt about it.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Jay Honeck wrote:


After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
or exceed.

It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.

Matt


There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.

The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.

A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.

A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.

The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.

For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.

I fly into a number of grass strips and fields with narrow runways and
lots of snow in the winter (well MOST winters anyway!). The Skylane is
far superior in these conditions. Also, I can much more easily find
emergency landing areas when I can see downward. The Arrow I fly now is
a real pain in this regard.

Does the 235 had a different fuselage design than the other Cherokee
family members? I find the Chrokee 180s and the Arrow I currently fly
to be very tight in shoulder width compared the the 182 I owned. And
having only one door that opens the cockpit to rain (at least it is on
the passengers seat!) is a real pain in bad weather. Nothing as nice as
running through the rain to my 182 and then loading up in a leisurely
manner under the protection of the wing. And you just can't beat having
two large doors.

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.

To say that one airplane is "best" is just stupid as it all depends on
your mission.

Matt

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

Actually, it's was pre-'73 235s that had the shorter fuselage. The
Dakota (1979 - 1984) is identical to the Pathfinder (1974 - 1978), but
with a tapered wing. (I think they may have enlarged the stabilator
again, too, but I'm not sure on that.)

Prior to '73, the PA28-235 line is (in my opinion) no better than a
PA28-180, simply because the back seat is unusable for adults. What
good is a 1400 pound useful load, if you can only carry kids and
double-amputees?

After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a
-235/-236. It is the ultimate expression of the Cherokee line, and we
have found very few mission parameters that our Pathfinder won't meet
or exceed.


Jay:

Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.

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

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)

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:54:48 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote:


Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.

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

Thanks!

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.

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?

Don

Don Tuite wrote:



All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
gph fuel consumption, aren't you?


I suppose it's possible to run 14 GPH down at sea level if you leave the
mixture full in. I burn 8 gph in my 520 in the Bo farting around the
local area at 155-160 mph indicated. Don't look at big engine/small
engine, look at miles per gallon.



Filling 80-gallon tanks with
$4.00/gallon fuel?

$2.90 around here and falling.

"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)

Douglas Paterson wrote:


Jay:

Thanks for the info--first hand knowledge like that is always useful.

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

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.

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"

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"