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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt. With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important in instrument flying. That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary. Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like *yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I know you can trim out most of that force...) Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary would never have liked it. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Douglas Paterson wrote: 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." \ Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to swap out. If my wife was that big ... it wouldn't be the controls I'd be swapping! :-) Matt |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off. To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550 feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado? I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper gradient? The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my 182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves. Matt |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
B A R R Y wrote:
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! I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than a Trinidad. :-) Matt |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Newps wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote: Newps, It's just going to cost more all around. More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to really like your Bo... ;-) I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's like shock cooling, more myth than reality. Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive by any measure. Matt |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Doug,
Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons. 1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The throw over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything else in a Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have to. It's like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised at how smooth and robust the controls are. 2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza there's really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what it means. The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all clearly identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the stick in my right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in the right hand as it is in most side by side airplanes. 3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less than 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly to maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber flap bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for $400.00. You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts cost - labor is labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance will be stuff that is common not Beech specific-engine, radio, instruments, tires, brakes, fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc. Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you think. It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't own or don't like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I let my friends talk me into at least flying one before I bought something else. Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for me was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and spoke to the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess mechanics speak a special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get better information from other mechanics than I could have. Finally when we had what we thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection for me. I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck. Dave M35 Douglas Paterson wrote: "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! |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Roy N5804F wrote:
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. Probably depends on what size you are. I'm shorter than you (6' even), but I weight 225 lbs and am not all that fat. I worked as a logger for 6 years during high school and college and have fairly broad shoulders. I find the Arrow barely comfortable with another person anywhere near my size in the right seat. The Skylane was plenty roomy. I don't know the exact measurements, but the Arrow feels even narrower to me than a Skyhawk, but it may be part illusion with the roof curving over my head. I flew several 4.5 hour legs in my 182, but I find 1.5 hours in the Arrow to be a long time. Matt |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Jay Honeck wrote:
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. Yes, it is a 67 and is basically a two passenger commercial pilot trainer. 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. My 67 Skylane was not much heavier in pitch than the 67 Arrow I fly now, especially at forward CG as when I'm flying alone or with two in the front seat. I'd always heard how heavy Skylane's were in pitch and how easy it was to land on the nosewheel. I found this to be pure bunk. I demonstrated to a skeptic that I could flare and land with two fingers. And I had capacity left over with two fingers. I could probably have landed with one, but I felt that was too risky if I slipped. :-) 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. Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next airplane ... which will hopefully be this year. Matt |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
john smith wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder? For comparison purposes from my PA28-236/Dakota manual... Vx = 73 kts Vy = 85 kts Vs = 56 kts / flaps 40 = 65 kts / flaps 0 Total fuel = 77 gal Usuable fuel = 72 gal * the 236 is a taper wing with two fuel tanks, the 235 is a straight Hershey bar wing with four fuel tanks Max gross wt = 3000 lbs Max ramp wt = 3011 lbs For the airplane I flew, BEW = 1789 lbs, or 1222 lbs useful load ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The C182R that I fly, the manual lists the following... Vx = 59 kts Vy = 81 kts Vs = 40 kts / flaps 40 = 50 kts / flaps 0 Total fuel = 92 gal Usable fuel = 88 gal Max gross wt = 3100 lbs Max ramp wt = 3110 For this airplane, BEW =1880, or 1230 lbs useful load I really question then the claim that the takeoff and landing roll of the 235/6 is even close to the 182. 15 knots difference in stall is huge. I know I was amazed at the difference between my Skylane and the Arrow. The stall isn't a lot higher, but Vx and Vy are much higher. I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard? Matt |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
"Newps" wrote in message . .. Thomas Borchert wrote: Newps, It's just going to cost more all around. More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to really like your Bo... ;-) I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's like shock cooling, more myth than reality. The inverse of price is availability. |
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 |