If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote: Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Hogwash. Even if the marketing caused all those 182's to be sold in error instead of the Cherokees, which was not the cause, if the Cherokee was indeed better it would sell for a lot more money than it does now. You like it and that's great but you are a small minority. See the Piper Cub as a prime example. Dirt cheap back in the day, take a look at your typical PA-18 now, the price is way out of proportion. It's because it is now known to be the best airplane for the purpose it was designed for and also why you can barely give away a used Husky. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
On 14 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did. Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night. Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Heck, I hadn't heard *anything* about the line prior to researching it, back before buying ours. Toecutter was the guy here who initially clued me in to the awesome performance that can be had for a relatively inexpensive price in the Pathfinder -- and the rest is history. It'll out-perform every other fixed-gear, 4-place aircraft of its day, in almost every performance parameter. If you want to haul four real people, with luggage and full tanks, there just aren't too many other alternatives. At least with the 235/182 comparison, it's apples/apples. I think the Comanche is better compared to The Trinidad or Newp's new Bo. Don |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Douglas Paterson wrote:
Hello, All! The Socata Trinidad (TB-20) seems to pretty closely match or slightly exceed the Comanche's performance numbers. For a comparably equipped Comanche, they seem to cost (acquisition) about the same. Meanwhile, the Trinidad is a 20-year-younger airplane, with cheaper insurance and (I'm given to believe) cheaper maintenance due to (a) ease of access and (b) availability of parts. Plus, the gull-wing doors are appealing to me (ease of entry/exit, not to mention "cool factor"). Can anyone weigh in here, either to confirm these observations or to squash my newbie analysis? Other thoughts? I've been in the TB9 before, which is the 160 hp version..the trainer/entry level plane. I agree that the airframe is AWESOME.. great vis, great ergonomics, great handling. The tb9 version is underpowered but that shouldnt be a prob in the -20. I can tell you hands down that the tb9 is not acceptable for where you are. Two big guys and a tankful of gas we ran out of lift at 8000 feet, and had anemic climb rates at sea level compared to the others. Its a big airframe. However. Ongoing costs may be the "gotcha" here. what are the costs for airframe parts, where do they come from (europe?. If you want a newer cruiser, this may be the plane for you, but its not as common as the other american brands. Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message oups.com... After 1973, there is simply no better fixed-gear aircraft than a -235/-236. If that were true they would have sold more than the handful they did. Yeah, right. And if buyers were that smart, they'd stay at our hotel for $69/night more often than the "Holiday Inn Express" for $99/night. Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy.... Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far? Honda spend virtually zip on advertising, but they can make cars fast enough. During the 80's and 90's the Japanese were blowing away Detroit while the "Big Three" were outspending the Japanese big three by nearly 5:1 and 10:1 on advertising. What was Piper's reputation in the 60's and 70's compared to Cessna? Who was up and down and around and around? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote: Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy.... Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far? Comment for both Jay and Matt: Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go. -- Bob Noel Looking for a sig the lawyers will hate |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
In a previous article, Bob Noel said:
In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy.... Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far? Comment for both Jay and Matt: Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go. And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk. -- Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/ Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash. -- Stephen Harris |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: Alas (then as now) marketing ruled America, and, like lemmings to the sea, buyers flocked to the brand with the bigger marketing budget. Only many years later have pilots come to realize what an incredible performer the 235 is. Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy.... Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far? Comment for both Jay and Matt: Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go. True! AIR, _Marketing_ is the research end of things(i.e., identifying a market niche), _Selling_ (Sales) is the advertising and promotion side. Again, IIRC, Japan spent a lot more on RESEARCH, Detroit spent a fortune on advertising, but made what THEY wanted to make and didn't give a damn about what the consumers wanted. The rest, as they say, is history! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, Bob Noel said: In article , "Matt Barrow" wrote: Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy.... Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far? Comment for both Jay and Matt: Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go. And never forget that big boost that Cessna got because their 172s and 182s were similar to the 152s that so many students trained in. Piper really should have brought out a cheap 2 seat trainer that looked more like a Cherokee, instead of the Trauma-hawk. There goes my new keyboard!!! :~) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Narrowing it down... Comanche? | Douglas Paterson | Owning | 18 | February 26th 06 12:51 AM |
Cherokee Pilots Association Fly-In Just Gets Better and Better | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 7 | August 8th 05 07:18 PM |
Comanche accident averted last evening | [email protected] | Piloting | 23 | April 13th 05 10:02 AM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | Piloting | 0 | May 5th 04 08:14 PM |
Cherokee National Fly-In & Convention | Don | General Aviation | 0 | March 20th 04 02:15 AM |