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
  #201  
Old January 23rd 07, 05:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,446
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Margy Natalie wrote:
Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any idea
you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any different
from ...., oh well).


This should read...
"Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, school teacher, little thing..."
  #202  
Old January 24th 07, 01:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Margy Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 476
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

john smith wrote:
Margy Natalie wrote:

Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, little thing and didn't have any
idea you boys would look at it this way (why I thought you were any
different from ...., oh well).



This should read...
"Look, I'm just a sweet, innocent, school teacher, little thing..."

I actually quit teaching this year. Now I'm just a sweet, innocent,
docent program manager at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, National Air
and Space Museum. I guess I could still use the teacher line as I'm in
the education department and my license is still good.

Margy
  #203  
Old January 24th 07, 08:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
M[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche


This is so true. At my airport there are two L-39s parked right next
to my Grumman. I can honestly say those L-39s fly less total hours in
the past two years than what I typically fly in a month.

If I were the owners of those L-39s, I would be nervous taking the
plane out if I let them sit for that long. Who knows what would break
and make a big smoking hole on the ground.


I was drooling over some of the L-39s that were coming on the market so
cheaply a while back, but someone (I believe it was Jose) pointed out
how expensive they were to maintain and operate. What good does a
go-fast do me if I can't afford to fly it?


  #204  
Old January 24th 07, 08:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
M[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



I'm sure everyone here has his fantasy of what to get if winning the
lotto. If a few million bucks suddenly show up in my bank account, the
most I'll get would be a single engine turboprop, a PC-12 or something
like that. Even in the world of turbine, it's hard to beat the cost
efficiency of single engine prop.

This is never, ever the case with a jet. A jet can save you time but
will always cost more in money.


  #205  
Old January 27th 07, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Douglas Paterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
. ..
Hello, All!

About a year ago, I started airplane shopping.


[snipped my story & request for info on & comparisons between the three
subject aircraft]

Thank you everyone who took the time to consider & reply--I got some great
information. While nothing's written in stone, and I still have some
learning to do before I actually write a check (and time is the issue
there--I firmly belief that "W-O-R-K" belongs in with all the other
four-letter-words), it's helped me reach at least a couple of conclusions:

- I still like the Comanches, but an apples-to-apples comparison between
those and the Trinidads favors the Trins

- I need to learn more about the Bonanza--from Newps' discussion points, I
may have overlooked a winning candidate

- I need to learn more about the Pathfinder--from Jay's discussion points,
it sounds like there are multiple flavors of the Cherokee 235 out there; if
I find that the Pathfinder meets my climb/ceiling/high elevation/high DA
needs, I may well stick with fixed gear after all

Once again, super input from the group. Thank you!
--
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)


  #206  
Old January 27th 07, 08:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Don Tuite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

A final word, then. You're not getting married; you're buying a
flying vehicle.

If it turns out it doesn't fit your mission or your mission changes,
sell it and buy something else.

Only thing wrong with that advice -- when I got married, I thought the
mission was changing, and I sold the Taylorcraft and bought a Stinson.
Thirty years later, I've still got the same wife, I've got shares in
other airplanes, but I sure miss the Taylorcraft every warm sunny day.

Don
  #207  
Old January 31st 07, 03:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche


Douglas Paterson wrote:

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 had 2 customers that owned Socatas. One sold his because he
wanted something
faster and the other because he couldn't afford to keep it. Parts
come from
France and they are priced accordingly. Windshield was over $1200 fob
France when
one owner over aggressively tried to de-ice his plane. Most of the
screws are metric on
the airframe, not standard AN hardware. The ailerons are actuated
with a torque tube
and push-pull tubes in the wings. The quality of the torque tube was
lacking where
it was attached to the yokes via a u-joint. Prior to the customer
buying the plane someone had tried to drill out the u-joint rivets and
replace them with bolts. Things wallowed out
again and the torque tube assembly needed to be replaced. The
maintenance manuals
are translated from French into English. Interesting reading at
best. In order to
replace the tube the entire bottom cover on the tunnel between the
pilot and co-pilot seats
had to be removed. The tunnel is made of thin steel - not aluminum!
After drilling out
dozens of rivets the tube was accessible. I don't recall what it cost
but it was an
expensive piece of metric sized chrome moly which had to be match
drilled to the
u-joint. It did not come pre-assembled. . The job was time consuming
because clearly
Socata didn't design the plane with this particular repair in mind.
While it may be a new design, if you pull the tail cone off you will
see a stabilator
trim mechanism which looks EXACTLY like the ones found on a Piper
Cherokee.
Over all the airplanes were not bad to work on. They both had IO540
Lycomming
engines on a tubular mount with removable top and bottom cowl pieces.
Once removed
everything was easily accessible. The underside of the fuselage was a
bit crowded
and required the removal of dozens of easily stripped metric screws to
drop the
access covers.

I never had the opportunity to fly one but the owners told be they
were very nimble
on the controls, especially after the sloppy torque tube joint was
replaced.

Gary Plewa
AP/IA
N4GP

  #208  
Old January 31st 07, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche



Gary wrote:
Windshield was over $1200 fob
France when
one owner over aggressively tried to de-ice his plane.




So you can't get one from say Cee Bailey like the rest of us? Strike one.




Most of the
screws are metric on
the airframe,


Strike two.




In order to
replace the tube the entire bottom cover on the tunnel between the
pilot and co-pilot seats
had to be removed. The tunnel is made of thin steel - not aluminum!
After drilling out
dozens of rivets the tube was accessible.




Strike three, poor design.
 




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 11:39 AM.


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