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
  #21  
Old January 15th 07, 05:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



Don Tuite wrote:


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.


Yes, that's true. A friend had a Commanche 260. Can't see how you'd
ever pick a Commanche over a Bo but everyone's different I guess.
  #22  
Old January 15th 07, 05:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



Paul Tomblin wrote:




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.


That's what the 140 was.
  #23  
Old January 15th 07, 07:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

In article ,
Newps wrote:

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.


That's what the 140 was.


not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more
speed, etc than a 150/152

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

  #24  
Old January 15th 07, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"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)



  #25  
Old January 15th 07, 07:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...

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


This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. 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! )

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)


  #26  
Old January 15th 07, 08:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"dave" wrote in message
. ..
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.


Thanks, Dave. I'm in full agreement on both points!

--
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)


  #27  
Old January 15th 07, 08:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:27:47 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
Newps wrote:

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.


That's what the 140 was.


not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more
speed, etc than a 150/152


Part of its problem. The perception when I learned to fly, in '68,
was that the PA28-180 was the Piper alternative for the 172's
mission. The 140 was neither fish nor fowl, and offered the
temptation of two back seats that you could not safely fill with
adults.

My impression was also that there were far more FBOs with 150s to rent
than 140s. My actual experience as a student and renter was at
Torrance, but I think it was the same at Hawthorne, Santa Monica and
Van Nuys, the other 3 big GA airports on the West side of the LA
basin. I do believe that the prevalence of 150 trainers boosted
Cessna sales over Piper.

My personal impression was that Cessnas were crackerboxes with flight
controls that had all the precision of the gearshifter in a VW
Microbus, while Piper handling reminded me of steering 1950s Chevy
pickups. My favorite rentals were Yankees and the FBO's Luscombe 8E.
(I was skinnier then.)

Now, almost 40 years later, I'm grateful to fly what I can get my
hands on.

Don
  #28  
Old January 15th 07, 08:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

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
  #29  
Old January 15th 07, 08:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

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.


Agreed on the TB-9's unsuitability for my mission--I eliminated it from
consideration long ago. I suppose if I were at a lower elevation it might
be a good trainer and/or a cheaper way to build Socata experience, but even
then it wouldn't be on my short list for purchase.

As to parts, my understanding from the Socata Owners' Forum is that yes,
they do originate in Europe, but Socata US (or whatever they call
themselves), located in South Florida, has a superb record of customer
support and keeping the supply lines open. I won't embarrass myself by
calling anything aviation-related "cheap," but I've been led to believe that
it's no worse (cost or availability) than any other brand/model.

Indeed, I've been told that the Comanche is particularly *expensive* in this
regard, since parts are getting harder and harder to find at any price
(which is, I believe, the reason the insurance is so much higher?). Factor
in the 20-years-newer factor to boot, and I should think "in general" that
one would be buying more airframe parts for a Comanche than a Trinidad to
begin with....

I've no problem admitting I'm a newbie here--if I'm out to lunch on any of
this thought process, please!, set me straight!

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)


  #30  
Old January 15th 07, 08:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote:

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
.. .

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


This is exactly the sort of opinion/comparison I'm after. 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

 




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 11:17 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.