A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 14th 07, 06:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Hello, All!

About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the
tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this
board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.

Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche
(PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb
performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the
summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and
now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques:

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?

The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure
out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the
line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the
maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all
for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and
they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance)
than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how
will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last
paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts?

Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.
--
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)



  #2  
Old January 14th 07, 10:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
from hershey-bar to tapered wing.

The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less
door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent
avionics.

Don
  #3  
Old January 15th 07, 01:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Pre '74 235s have the shorter PA28 fuselage. Dakotas mark the switch
from hershey-bar to tapered wing.

The 235/236 is roughly equivalent to the 182. But it has one less
door, and year-by-year costs about $10,000 less with equivalent
avionics.


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.

That said, a Comanche is a very cool plane. You're right about the
costs, though -- they will be higher in every measurable way.

Finally, I don't know anything about he Trinidad, other than it looks
cool.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

  #4  
Old January 15th 07, 01:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



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.
  #5  
Old January 15th 07, 02:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,232
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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
  #6  
Old January 15th 07, 03:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Doug,

I just bought a plane that's not on your short list but two pieces of
advice if I may. One - find a plane with the avionics you want.
After searching for many months and looking at airplanes, I found that
what others had told me is true. The lowest return by far on any
improvement you make in an airplane is in the avionics. I don't know
why but it is. I got a Garmin 430, garmin audio panel, Stec 50 with
alt hold and GPSS roll steering, Sandel 3308, KX155 and some other
goodies. BTW - the Sandel 3308 is fantastic.

Two - join the type clubs of any airplane your serious about buying. I
joined the mooney group, the bonanza group and the cessna group. I
don't know if there's a Socata organization but they have an active
website at socota.org.

Good luck with the search - it's a buyer's market right now.

Dave
Bonanza M35

Douglas Paterson wrote:
Hello, All!

About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the
tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this
board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.

Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche
(PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb
performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the
summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and
now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques:

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?

The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure
out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the
line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the
maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all
for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and
they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance)
than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how
will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last
paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts?

Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.



--
David Harnitchek, PE
  #7  
Old January 15th 07, 04:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

In article ,
Newps 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.


not necessarily. quite often marketing trumps product superiority.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

  #8  
Old January 15th 07, 04:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Kyle Boatright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default 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


  #9  
Old January 15th 07, 05:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



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.



  #10  
Old January 15th 07, 05:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Narrowing it down... Comanche? Douglas Paterson Owning 18 February 26th 06 01:51 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 03:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.