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

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"

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

Husky carries only 50 pounds of baggage.

I carry more survival equipment than that!

Karl
Super Cubs N4201Z, N7474D
"Curator" N185KG


"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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

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.