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"

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.

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

Husky's outperform Supercubs in speed,

That's a given.


comfort,

Subjective.


instruments and on
floats.

Who cares about that in something your flinging around the dirt strips?
All you really need is a tach, a radio and a transponder. The rest is
just weight.


The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
land short.


The Cubs land and takeoff shorter.

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.

"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)

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

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:57:59 -0700, "Douglas Paterson"
wrote:

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


Ah. OK, I see what you meant now.

For the record, I completely agree. I mention the Pathfinder et al with the
Comanche & Trinidad not because I think they're apples-to-apples airplanes.
I include the Pathfinder because it's the only (*only*) fixed-gear aircraft
my research uncovered that met my mission description (I looked hard at the
Cherokee Six [PA-32] line, but decided it was bigger than I wanted or needed
and, largely as a result of that excess size/capacity, provided less
bang/buck than the other options).

When I first started, I'd no idea I'd still be looking a year later.
Circumstances. However, I think it was Day One, Lesson One, in Aircraft
Buying 101, both here and in every book I read, that the best method is to
define your mission first, then pick the plane that fits it. In that
regard, these three planes form a consistent (though hardly all-inclusive)
grouping.
--
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)