Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Jay Honeck wrote:

If you fly into only improved fields, over friendly terrain and are a
fair weather flier (Jay's mission profile), then I won't argue that a
235 is probably a good choice. If you fly in inclement weather, over
hostile terrain where finding an emergency landing area may be tricky,
like more room, etc., then the 182 is a better choice.


While that is my mission profile, what you've forgotten to mention are
the four most important reasons I'd choose a Pathfinder over a Skylane:

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. You'd have to
carry lead to get to gross. The Skylane was a mansion inside by
comparison. I asked before, but nobody responded. Is the fuselage of
the Pathfinder the same width as the other Cherokees? I believe the
answeris yes, but I'm not sure never having been inside one. It if is,
then it is simply too narrow for comfortable traveling.


2. Speed

Not much difference.


3. Handling.

I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
Cessna's. I prefer the Cessna handling in every case. The Arrow is
more responsive in pitch and roll than the Skylane, but the rudder is
very stiff and sluggish compared to the Skylane. The Skylane controls
are better balanced on all axes ... they are uniformly heavy. :-)


And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...

That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)


Matt