Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche
Douglas Paterson
About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past the
tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on this
board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.
Last time around, I'd focused my energies on the Piper Comanche
(PA-24-260B/C). The combination of useful load and ceiling/climb
performance (I live in Colorado Springs, w/ DA in the 10K'+ range in the
summer) were the main factors in that. After some looking around (then and
now), I have some questions (seeking opinions) on two other marques:
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?
The Piper Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder (PA-28-235) [and I can't figure
out if the Dakota (PA-28-236) is an evolution or complete change of the
line?] is also attractive. I'm not hung up retractable gear (indeed, if the
maintenance is cheaper without a correspondingly higher fuel burn, I'm all
for fixed gear), the useful load numbers on the 235 match the other two, and
they can be had somewhat cheaper (acquisition, insurance, and maintenance)
than the other two. I'm concerned mostly about ceiling/climb issues--how
will this airplane handle my high-elevation location? Same deal as last
paragraph: can anyone confirm/deny these thoughts? Other thoughts?
Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.
--
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)
Don Tuite
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
Jay Honeck
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"
Newps
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.
Matt Whiting
> 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.
It depends on your mission. I'll take a 182 over a 235 any day.
Matt
dave
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.
Good luck with the search - it's a buyer's market right now.
Dave
Bonanza M35
--
David Harnitchek, PE
Bob Noel
Newps <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
not necessarily. quite often marketing trumps product superiority.
--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate
Kyle Boatright
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:lSAqh.2124$Oc.1...@news1.epix.net...
There are several performance measures where the PA-235/236 generally
trounces the C-182.
The first is price. The Pipers are $10k less expensive due to Cessna having
more brand loyalists. $10k buys a lot of avgas, a decent panel update, or a
very nice paintjob and a few aftermarket speed mod's.
A second is useful load. All of the Pipers have a ~1400 lb useful load,
which is anywhere between 100 and 400 pounds more than various iterations of
the 182.
A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.
The speeds of the various models are comparable. The Cessnas probably have
a higher ceiling and can get in and out of shorter fields.
For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
choice.
KB
Newps
Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> A third is that the Piper has a Lycoming engine, whereas the Cessna has a
> Continental. Lycomings tend to need less top end work than Continentals.
Yep, the Lycoming design flaw is putting the camshaft up high. Having a
choice between the two it's Continental all the way. Lyc's are famous
for eating cams, that's a complete teardown. If you need to fix a
cylinder on a Continental you fix a cylinder.
>
> For me, the Piper is the clear winner, but if you're playing at being a bush
> pilot or flying in high density altitudes, the Cessna may be a better
> choice.
No doubt about it.
Jay Honeck
> > -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.
Newps
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.
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.
Don
Dave S
> Hello, All!
> 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'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.
Dave
Matt Whiting
I fly into a number of grass strips and fields with narrow runways and
lots of snow in the winter (well MOST winters anyway!). The Skylane is
far superior in these conditions. Also, I can much more easily find
emergency landing areas when I can see downward. The Arrow I fly now is
a real pain in this regard.
Does the 235 had a different fuselage design than the other Cherokee
family members? I find the Chrokee 180s and the Arrow I currently fly
to be very tight in shoulder width compared the the 182 I owned. And
having only one door that opens the cockpit to rain (at least it is on
the passengers seat!) is a real pain in bad weather. Nothing as nice as
running through the rain to my 182 and then loading up in a leisurely
manner under the protection of the wing. And you just can't beat having
two large doors.
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.
To say that one airplane is "best" is just stupid as it all depends on
your mission.
Matt
Doug
floats. The Supercub will come down steeper and can be lighter. Both
land short. They are comparably priced.
Matt Barrow
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1168836879.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 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.
Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
Honda spend virtually zip on advertising, but they can make cars fast
enough.
During the 80's and 90's the Japanese were blowing away Detroit while the
"Big Three" were outspending the Japanese big three by nearly 5:1 and 10:1
on advertising.
What was Piper's reputation in the 60's and 70's compared to Cessna? Who was
up and down and around and around?
Bob Noel
"Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@site_fill.com> 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.
>
> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>
> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
Comment for both Jay and Matt:
Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.
Paul Tomblin
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.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash.
-- Stephen Harris
Matt Barrow
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-A83...@news.isp.giganews.com...
market niche), _Selling_ (Sales) is the advertising and promotion side.
Again, IIRC, Japan spent a lot more on RESEARCH, Detroit spent a fortune on
advertising, but made what THEY wanted to make and didn't give a damn about
what the consumers wanted. The rest, as they say, is history!
Matt Barrow
"Paul Tomblin" <ptomblin...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:eog1i6$lmt$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, Bob Noel <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> said:
>>In article <45ab7e5a$0$507$815e...@news.qwest.net>,
>> "Matt Barrow" <mbarrow@site_fill.com> wrote:
>>> Using the old BETA vs. VHS analogy....
>>>
>>> Guess which of the two had the bigger advertising budget by far?
>>
>>Comment for both Jay and Matt:
>>Marketing is not just how many $$ spent, but where the $$ go.
>
> 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.
There goes my new keyboard!!! :~)
Newps
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.
Newps
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.
Bob Noel
Newps <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
not really. The 140 is like a 150hp 172 in performance, way more
speed, etc than a 150/152
Douglas Paterson
>
> 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!
Douglas Paterson
news:t04mq2h4gv7sqjl8m...@4ax.com...
>
> 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!
Douglas Paterson
news:BZqdnX8x98hbdzfY...@comcast.com...
> 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!
Don Tuite
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
Don Tuite
<lastname....@comcast.net> 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
$4.00/gallon fuel?
Don
Douglas Paterson
news:f5Hqh.14503$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.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!
Don Tuite
<lastname....@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Don Tuite" <don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote in message
>news:t04mq2h4gv7sqjl8m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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
Newps
Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> 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....
And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
accordingly.
Newps
Douglas Paterson wrote:
> "Don Tuite" <don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote in message
> news:t04mq2h4gv7sqjl8m...@4ax.com...
>
>>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! :) )
But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers. For example the
beauty of Bonanza landing gear is the design. Once it's properly set,
and this is not difficult, it is incredibly reliable. It's like having
a fixed gear in terms of cost and it's much, much stronger than the gear
of say a 182 RG. I wouldn't want a Cessna RG unless someone else was
paying for maintenence. Not counting the gear, which doesn't add hardly
anything anyways, the Bo hasn't cost me any more than the 182 did
maintenence wise. Insurance is higher but coming down every year, but
it will always be higher than the 182. However it was less than the
same hull value 206 I was looking at, figure that one out.
The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.
Newps
Don Tuite wrote:
>
> All these planes with the big engines -- you ARE figuring on 13 - 14
> gph fuel consumption, aren't you?
I suppose it's possible to run 14 GPH down at sea level if you leave the
mixture full in. I burn 8 gph in my 520 in the Bo farting around the
local area at 155-160 mph indicated. Don't look at big engine/small
engine, look at miles per gallon.
Filling 80-gallon tanks with
> $4.00/gallon fuel?
$2.90 around here and falling.
Don Tuite
>
>Don Tuite wrote:
>
> Filling 80-gallon tanks with
>> $4.00/gallon fuel?
>
>$2.90 around here and falling.
>
It's down here, too, but I'm anticipating. What's car gas been doing
up your way? Here, it's up 30 cents from its late-October nadir and
no expectation of a plateau.
Don
Newps
currently falling and today it's at $2.11. Go to
www.montanagasprices.com to see the price. Substitute any state for
montana to see that area. Many areas are well below $2 now.
Matt Whiting
If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)
The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to
look down is a real pain many a time. Yes, I know the advantage of
seeing the runway when in the pattern, but I spend a lot less time in
the pattern than I do flying cross country and if you fly a normal
rectangular pattern losing sight of the runway for a few seconds in the
turns is simply not an issue.
Matt
Newps
Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> If only Beech made a high-wing Bo. :-)
The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as
I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the
wing up in the mountains but this is minor. I don't miss the pillbox
view out of a 182. That was the first thing I noticed when I got the
Bo. I can see 10 times better out of the Bo than the 182, I would
really hate to give that up.
>
> The more I fly the Arrow the more I wish for my 182. Not being able to
> look down is a real pain many a time.
I don't find that to be a big deal.
Frank Stutzman
Thats what inverted flight is for ;-)
> The one thing I miss is two doors. Loading in the rain is irrelavant as
> I don't fly in the rain, I live out West. I also miss sitting under the
> wing up in the mountains but this is minor.
I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.
Its been 10 years since I flew anything but the Bonanza, but before that I
had some time in a 182 and almost bought a Commanche.
The only thing I remember about the 182 was how truck like the handling
was, especially in pitch. Probably not a big deal if one is travelling
cross country, but sometimes I like a mild yank and bank. My earlier
Bonanza is much more fun than that.
The Commanche sure was nice looking on the ground, but the view from the
inside was like being in a cave. Probably really wasn't that bad the the
plane I was looking at had a sort of a dark orange interior that probably
didn't help the situation.
--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
Newps
Frank Stutzman wrote:
>
>
> I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
> ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.
Yes, I forgot about that. Actually it works better as you can stand up
and not hit your head.
e.dr...@nyetspam.verizon.net
you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The
primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in
cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable
power.
Looking specifically at climb and high altitude performance, there is a
difference between the Dakota and older Cherokee 235/Pathfinder models with
the "Hershey Bar" wing. For example, compare "book" service ceilings:
17,500 ft for the Dakota and only 14,500 for the 235C. The longer wing
provides higher L/D, which is what you want if you need to fly high.
If you are going to consider RG airplanes in the same performance class as a
Dakota or a Cessna 182 then what you are looking at is an Arrow III or IV, a
Cessna Cardinal RG, or a 200 HP Mooney. The Mooney is quite a bit faster
but all three have service ceilings similar to that of the Dakota. The
Arrow III/IV and Dakota provide interesting comparisons because their
airframes are of virtually identical dimensions. They boast virtually the
same cruise speed and the Arrow service ceiling is just a little lower at
16,200 ft. The useful load of the Dakota is certainly larger, but a good
portion of the difference is eaten up in higher fuel requirements if you are
flying any distance.
If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged
airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front
Range.
-Elliott Drucker
e.dr...@nyetspam.verizon.net
On 15-Jan-2007, Frank Stutzman <stut...@skylane.kjsl.com> wrote:
> I'm not a particularly tall person so I find I can sit under the
> ruddervators and it works almost as well as a cessna wing.
The T-Tail on my Arrow IV serves the same function, and it's tall enough for
just about anybody to stand under.
-Elliott Drucker
Matt Barrow
"Newps" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:wZWdnRaUfONvZjbY...@bresnan.com...
> Gas is slightly higher now than its low point last fall. It is currently
> falling and today it's at $2.11. Go to www.montanagasprices.com to see
> the price. Substitute any state for montana to see that area. Many areas
> are well below $2 now.
>
>
Station by station; plug in your own zipcode
We're higher due to being in the midst of ski resorts.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)
Jay Honeck
> 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
2. Speed
3. Handling.
And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
182...
;-)
"If Momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Jay Honeck
> operating altitudes? Ceiling and climb capability concerns, again....
We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've
flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid
City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees.
All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas.
No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft.
Jay Honeck
> seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
> off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
> can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
> accordingly.
With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
prop in about the same distance.
Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
laughing...
Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...
;-)
Ray Andraka
> Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...
You were/are!
Douglas Paterson
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.
Douglas Paterson
>
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>>the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
>>offense, Newps! :) )
>
> But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers.
I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
2) The reversed controls. Weird again.
3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
pricey to maintain.
Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. Thanks for the
input!
karl gruber
I carry more survival equipment than that!
Karl
Super Cubs N4201Z, N7474D
"Curator" N185KG
"Doug" <anoth...@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:1168860606.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
>
Douglas Paterson
news:eoh6rm$14lj$1...@stationair.kjsl.com...
>
> The Commanche sure was nice looking on the ground, but the view from the
> inside was like being in a cave. Probably really wasn't that bad the the
> plane I was looking at had a sort of a dark orange interior that probably
> didn't help the situation.
>
Interesting comment. That's one thing I find very attractive about the
Trinidad--lots of windows, it feels very "open." Another is the cabin
width--I'm rather broad of shoulder (and none too skinny of waist, if you
catch my drift), the Trinidad feels downright agoraphobic compared to the
Pipers....
The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
Comanche and toward the Trinidad (which is a 180 from where I was last
March). The Pathfinder is the wild card--definitely cheaper to buy, and
almost certainly cheaper to own/operate. Hmmmm.....
Thanks for the thoughts!
Douglas Paterson
>
> 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.
OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer
time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind?
Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an
issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement
at high-elevation fields?
>
> 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?
Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... :)
Thanks for the input!!
Douglas Paterson
news:1168921543....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> We've operated as high as 13K feet, flying into Reno, Nevada. We've
> flown into and around Wyoming on 100 degree days. We flew out of Rapid
> City on a day when the temperature on the ground was 116 degrees.
>
> All with full (84 gallon) tanks, and four people. All on car gas.
>
> No problems. It's a wonderful -- and affordable -- aircraft.
Great information, thanks!
Douglas Paterson
news:mRVqh.11419$wq.2321@trndny07...
> As others have pointed out, between a Cherokee 235/Dakota and a Comanche
> 260
> you are really talking about two different classes of performance. The
> primary difference is that the RG of the Comanche gives a big boost in
> cruise speed and a smaller boost in climb rate from engines of comparable
> power.
Understood--see my response to an earlier post, I understand the Pathfinder
is odd-man-out in the group I list. I include it as the only fixed-gear
that appears to fit my mission description.
As to the differences you cite, I definitely like the speed boost, and even
a modest boost in climb rate is important at my higher operating altitudes.
I'm investigating the Pathfinder primarily for cost reasons--on my first
time out, I'd hate to ignore any viable candidate, so if the 235 can do what
I need for less money, it will be a real contender that I would have to
consider.
[snipped good discussion & comparison of various a/c]
>
> If I were based at Colorado Springs I'd certainly consider a turbocharged
> airplane, particularly if much of my flying took me west over the Front
> Range.
Considered, definitely. Turbo scares me--too many horror stories, both of
overtaxed engines and monster (even by GA standards) maintenance costs. I
don't expect "much" flying over the mountains, but who knows? In theory, I
agree with you; in practice, I think I'll shy away from turbo my first time
out. Trying to "beat" this issue w/ normal aspiration is a large part of
why the Comanche and Trinidad are on the list, btw: their 20K' ceilings.
I've been told the real-world ceiling of the Comanche is more like 17K'
(which still beats the "book" numbers of the others you cite), and the
Trinidad apparently really is capable of FL200.
Thanks, Elliott--great discussion. Dunno if you recall, but you helped me a
great deal when I was first starting here, in particular with understanding
the tradeoffs between fixed gear and retracts. Then and now, I appreciate
it!
Don Tuite
<lastname....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
>the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there?
Field elevations there are around 6000 feet. Surrounding mountains
are high, but no tricky passes like CO, WY, etc.
The difference is between the 235 and Cherokee 180s and 172s Ive flown
into those airports with. With those punier planes, getting out of
the valleys involves hugging the mountain sides to pick up some lift
until you're high enough to go somewhere. With the 235 it's less
dramatic, though you still want to lean for maximum power before you
take off.
>Sort of. In my cost-to-own spreadsheet, I'm using 15 gph and $4/gal,
>assuming that those should give me pretty conservative figures (i.e., a
>"worst case"). In my head, I've been using whatever 100LL cost around here
>the last time I looked (pretty close to $4 still, I'm sorry to say) and 12
>gph. Then I shake my head and think about something else, quick, before I
>realize I have no excuse to be spending that kind of money.... :)
>
Sounds like you're being conservative. Good. While I'm typing, let
me give you some numbers.
I belong to a club with 11 members and two airplanes: a '67 235 and a
'73 PA-28-180 Challenger. We've had the 235 for well over a decade,
and the 180 for a year and a half. (Had a 172 before that, but people
hardly ever flew it.)
We have monthly dues to cover fixed costs (hangar, tiedown, insurance)
and hourly rates for variable costs, including fuel, engine reserve,
and maintenance based on historical data on these particular aircraft.
The mechanic who does most of the routine maintenance has a very low
hourly rate, which skews things a little to the cheap side. (OTOH,
right now, we're all working off an assessment that's paying for an
early major following a prop strike on the 180.)
But by May, the assessment will be over. Based on historical numbers,
and assuming fuel near $4.00, the club treasurer figures we ought to
be charging $77 for the 180 and $100 for the 235, tach time, wet. At
those rates, the 180 will be subsidizing the 235, but if we were to
keep the 235 at $117, where it is now, and lowered the rate on the
180, the 235 probably wouldn't fly enough.
As a reality check, a big local club West Valley) has a Dakota that
goes for $140 (Hobbs, Wet)
So your spreadsheet ought to put you somewhere in that ballpark.
Don
Matt Whiting
>>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
Matt Whiting
>>And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
>>seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
>>off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
>>can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
>>accordingly.
>
>
> With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
> a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
> prop in about the same distance.
>
> Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
> However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
> instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
> myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
> was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
> laughing...
What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?
Matt
B A R R Y
> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time
> and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.
But they look cool!
Roy N5804F
Matt,
All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
length.
There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
and front seat passenger.
PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
distance, go places, airplane.
We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.
--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:Y43rh.2150$Oc.1...@news1.epix.net...
Jay Honeck
>
> 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.
If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
seat up for flying.
> > 2. Speed
>
> Not much difference.
Depends on the bird.
> > 3. Handling.
>
> I've flown a dozen different Pipers and about the same number of
> Cessna's.
With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
the controls.
> > And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
> > 182...
>
> That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)
If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
Roy N5804F
Right on the money Jay,
It is almost a better ride in the back than in the front.
Loads of leg room with the extra 5" in the cabin length.
But when in the back I shut my eyes most of the time ;-)
In any case I would not fly in a high winger in case the cabin dropped off
the wings;-)
I will now put my fireproof coveralls on and the shields are already up !!
--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1168952423....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Newps
Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
\
Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just
gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to
swap out.
>
> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.
Uh, what? I turn left and go left.
>
> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.
Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off.
To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats
in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550
feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty
is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which
is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado?
Newps
> "Doug" <anoth...@access4less.net> wrote in message
> news:1168860606.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
Newps
Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
> Comanche and toward the Trinidad
You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
is? Holy Cow.
Newps
Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
> OK, that's a good data point. Truckee/Tahoe are around 8,000', yes? What's
> the elevations in the pass(es) you go through to get there? Summer
> time/fully loaded, or do you have to leave some gas or your buddy behind?
> Do you mention that ground effect trick for short/soft fields, or is it an
> issue of you can't get going fast enough with the wheels rolling on pavement
> at high-elevation fields?
Any 182 or Cherokee 235 will get thru 12,000 foot passes near gross
weight. You don't try to takeoff in either one at gross off a short
field at a high density altitude. Period.
Newps
Might as well look cool and go fast.
Thomas Borchert
> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts.
>
Not so. Most of the systems stuff is standard, brakes, engine,
avionics. The rest is easily obtained through Socata.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Thomas Borchert
> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
> is? Holy Cow.
>
Two words:
- Doors!
- Visibility!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Newps
Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad
>>is? Holy Cow.
>>
>
>
> Two words:
>
> - Doors!
> - Visibility!
I'll grant you the extra door, wish I had it, especially a gull wing
door, that's cool. Visibility? Nope, I don't think so. They'd be
equal in the respect, plus the overriding downside to the Trinidad is a
complete and total lack of parts without having to order them in. Plus,
doing upgrades or getting an STC for something cool. I learned from the
Cardinal I owned. It's like owning an Apple computer. All the new and
great programs come out for the PC and maybe they come out for the
Apple. Maybe.
Newps
Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts.
>>
>
>
> Not so. Most of the systems stuff is standard, brakes, engine,
> avionics. The rest is easily obtained through Socata.
Everybody can get parts but nobody has ever seen a Trinidad, nobody
knows how to operate on them. It's just going to cost more all around.
john smith
> What is Vs and Vx on the Pathfinder?
For comparison purposes
from my PA28-236/Dakota manual...
Vx = 73 kts
Vy = 85 kts
Vs = 56 kts / flaps 40
= 65 kts / flaps 0
Total fuel = 77 gal
Usuable fuel = 72 gal
* the 236 is a taper wing with two fuel tanks, the 235 is a straight
Hershey bar wing with four fuel tanks
Max gross wt = 3000 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3011 lbs
For the airplane I flew, BEW = 1789 lbs, or 1222 lbs useful load
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The C182R that I fly, the manual lists the following...
Vx = 59 kts
Vy = 81 kts
Vs = 40 kts / flaps 40
= 50 kts / flaps 0
Total fuel = 92 gal
Usable fuel = 88 gal
Max gross wt = 3100 lbs
Max ramp wt = 3110
For this airplane, BEW =1880, or 1230 lbs useful load
john smith
>With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
>(by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
>dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
>the controls.
>
C182's have a spring in the pitch control. This provides and artificial
"heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
in instrument flying.
Frank Stutzman
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
Eh? Thats downright cool. Front seat pax has a lot more room and it
makes it easier to get in and out of the plane (second door would be
nicer, but would probably make things heavier). There is never any
question about who is flying the plane.
However, there are a fair amount of people who see it your way and feel
the need for two yokes. There are both factory and aftermarket dual yoke
systems that can replace the single yoke with about a half hours worth of
work.
> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.
Am not sure what you mean here. Maybe the gear switch being on the right
side of the panel and the flaps on the left? Its never been a problem for
me as I don't ever fly anything else. I suspect I might be an gear-up
accident waiting to happen if I went and got in some other retract.
> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.
I think Newps already addressed this well enough. The fact that i can
even get NEW parts for my 57 year old plane says enough, IMO.
--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID)
Thomas Borchert
> It's just going to cost more all around.
>
More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
really like your Bo... ;-)
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Thomas Borchert
> Visibility? Nope, I don't think so.
>
Well, I do. Definitely. I fly a TB-10 Tobago now (same airframe), and I
have about 70 hours in 35s and 33s. The Bo is still nice ;-)
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Newps
Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Newps,
>
>
>>It's just going to cost more all around.
>>
>
>
> More than something from Beech??? Come on. Let's just say you seem to
> really like your Bo... ;-)
I'm a data point of one but the high prices just don't pan out. It's
like shock cooling, more myth than reality.
john smith
>Two words:
>
>- Doors!
>- Visibility!
>
When Trinadads first arrived in the US, the complaint was the lack of
ventilation. All the glass made for a green house in the cabin.
I never heard if this adquately was addressed in subsequent models.
Newps
I can believe that. I always snickered at the planes with curtains,
looked ridiculous. Now I know why. I need them in the Bo. I will
probably have my wife cobble something up with fabric and velcro.
Montblack
> About a year ago, I started airplane shopping. For personal and
> professional reasons, I had to back-burner that after never getting past
> the tire-kicking stage. Along the way, I got a lot of help from folks on
> this board, so now I'm returning to the fount as I prepare to begin anew.
> Thanks--I'm a newbie, I know it, and this board has been invaluable.
What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K?
The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other
partners?
They were asking around $420K.
Looks like now $175K (x3) might be closer (loaded + tax)
Diamond DA-42 Twin Star.
<http://www.asijetcenter.com/index.cfm?event=pageview&contentpieceid=1404>
AOPA Flight review (Nov 2006) Specs at the bottom
The Cool Factor will not fit in a 40' hangar ...44.5' wingspan.
Q: Consider, for a moment, if 100LL will be around much longer?
A: You won't care. You'll have liquid cooled diesel engines.
Q: Parts?
A: Warranty!
Montblack
Newps
Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
$574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
million.
Don Tuite
>Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of
>$574K down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046
>million.
>
Soon as the minimum wage boost cuts in, it'll go right back up.
Don
Jay Honeck
> "heavy" feel to the elevator control. Several years ago, Richard Collins
> wrote an article which examined the design factors and accident rates of
> several popular GA single engine piston aircraft. Collin's assertion was
> that the artifical heavy feel of the Skylane's elevator contributed to
> its safety record since any pull or push had to be deliberate and felt.
> With the other aircraft he reviewed, the elevator pressure was lighter
> and contol inputs could be made without realizing it. This is important
> in instrument flying.
That's all well and good, but I hated it, and so did Mary.
Mary's real problem with a Skylane, however, was that in order to sit
close enough to reach the rudder pedals, she couldn't flare enough to
land. And what flare she COULD do was impeded by that truck-like
*yank* that you need in order to move the danged yoke. (And, yes, I
know you can trim out most of that force...)
Personally, I didn't mind it too much -- I'm sure I'd have gotten used
to it, and I *did* like having two doors. (I can see at time when I
won't be so thrilled about hopping jauntily up on the wing.) But Mary
would never have liked it.
Matt Whiting
>
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>
>>
>> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
>> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>>
>> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially
>> my first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
>
> \
>
>
> Weird? Not hardly. Leaves lots of room for the wife and if you just
> gotta have dual controls you can get one on ebay. They take a minute to
> swap out.
If my wife was that big ... it wouldn't be the controls I'd be swapping!
:-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
> Nope. First off a Bonanza doesn't break. Not like the tin cans your
> looking at. That's the first thing I noticed, however that makes the
> plane a little heavier. I really hate weight but that's the trade off.
> To compare to the 182 I had doing the same test the Bo with two seats
> in, myself and 40 gallons only needs an extra 100 feet of runway, 550
> feet vs 450. Lands and gets stopped in same distance. The real beauty
> is once you're in the air it will far outclimb your 182/Cherokee, which
> is really what you're looking for, right, being there in Colorado?
I know it will climb at a higher rate, but is it really a steeper
gradient? The Arrow I fly now climbs at a slightly lower rate than my
182 did, but the gradient is much less as best rate on the Arrow is
about 100 MPH vs. around 70 in the Skylane if memory serves.
Matt
Matt Whiting
> Newps wrote:
>
>> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody
>> has them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes
>> time and expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to
>> pay.
>
>
>
> But they look cool!
I think they are ugly. I like the looks of Jays Pathfinder better than
a Trinidad. :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
Operational costs maybe, but initial purchase of a Bo isn't inexpensive
by any measure.
Matt
dave
Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons.
1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The
throw over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything
else in a Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have
to. It's like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised
at how smooth and robust the controls are.
2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza
there's really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what
it means. The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all
clearly identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the
stick in my right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in
the right hand as it is in most side by side airplanes.
3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less
than 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly
to maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber
flap bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for
$400.00. You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts
cost - labor is labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance
will be stuff that is common not Beech specific-engine, radio,
instruments, tires, brakes, fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc.
Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you
think. It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't
own or don't like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I
let my friends talk me into at least flying one before I bought
something else.
Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for
me was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and
spoke to the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess
mechanics speak a special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get
better information from other mechanics than I could have. Finally
when we had what we thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection
for me.
I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck.
Dave
M35
Douglas Paterson wrote:
> "Newps" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4tmdncXG1OnGfzbY...@bresnan.com...
>>
>> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>>> the Bonanza for that matter, though I'm not really looking at those--no
>>> offense, Newps! :) )
>> But don't rule it out. Get all the facts/numbers.
>
> I doubt I have "all" the facts--will I ever? But, I did rule out the
> Bonanza for essentially three reasons:
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
>
> 2) The reversed controls. Weird again.
>
> 3) Cost. Based on your post, I guess you'd disagree with this one. Seems
> like everything I read, though, indicated that the Bos are pricey to buy and
> pricey to maintain.
>
> Everything I've read *also* seems to indicate that the Bos are great
> airplanes--just not the right one for me, not this time. Thanks for the
> input!
Matt Whiting
>
> Matt,
>
> All PA28 aircraft have the same cabin external width.
> The big difference that occurred over the years was the increase in cabin
> length.
> There is very little leg room in the shorter cabin length.
> Somewhere around 1973/1975 Piper increased the length of the cabin by
> several inches, maybe at or about the same time as the Challenger model with
> longer Hershey Bar wing was introduced.
> The tapered wing PA28's appeared around 1976 and all tapered wing Archers,
> Arrows and Dakotas have the longer cabin.
> In my 1977 Archer, the rear seats are perfectly comfortable for long
> distance travel and the leg room is more than adequate.
> I am 6' 1" and recently did a 3 hour leg in the back with 6'0" tall pilot
> and front seat passenger.
>
> PA28's do not have the widest cabins but they certainly are good long
> distance, go places, airplane.
> We purchased our Archer II in California and flew it over or through all the
> big stuff at full gross weight with Summer DA's to Ohio.
Probably depends on what size you are. I'm shorter than you (6' even),
but I weight 225 lbs and am not all that fat. I worked as a logger for
6 years during high school and college and have fairly broad shoulders.
I find the Arrow barely comfortable with another person anywhere near
my size in the right seat. The Skylane was plenty roomy. I don't know
the exact measurements, but the Arrow feels even narrower to me than a
Skyhawk, but it may be part illusion with the roof curving over my head.
I flew several 4.5 hour legs in my 182, but I find 1.5 hours in the
Arrow to be a long time.
Matt
Matt Whiting
>>>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.
>
>
> If you have the older, short body, yep. Anything after '73 (I think)
> has got 5" more rear legroom -- and that makes ALL the difference.
> When I ride in the back of my plane (which doesn't happen often, but
> occasionally Mary and a girlfriend will take the front seats), I'm
> always astounded at the room I've got -- and I'm 6' tall. It's like
> stretch limo back there, especially when Mary (at 5' tall) pulls the
> seat up for flying.
Yes, it is a 67 and is basically a two passenger commercial pilot trainer.
> With Skyhawks, I'd agree. Skylanes, however, are very heavy in pitch
> (by comparison), and feel very truck-like. Our Pathfinder is postively
> dainty-feeling, by comparison, and it's not known for being light on
> the controls.
My 67 Skylane was not much heavier in pitch than the 67 Arrow I fly now,
especially at forward CG as when I'm flying alone or with two in the
front seat.
I'd always heard how heavy Skylane's were in pitch and how easy it was
to land on the nosewheel. I found this to be pure bunk. I demonstrated
to a skeptic that I could flare and land with two fingers. And I had
capacity left over with two fingers. I could probably have landed with
one, but I felt that was too risky if I slipped. :-)
>
>>>And, of course, #4 (and most important of all): Mary DESPISED flying a
>>>182...
>>
>>That is the only reason that seems logical to me! :-)
>
>
> If we had found a great deal on a 182, she would have learned to like
> the Skylane. All planes have their positive and negative points.
Yes, I don't see any great deals on 182s. The demand seems to be
holding for them. I did notice that 235s are pretty cheap, but not
cheap enough to sway me that direction. I'd rather downgrade to a
Skyhawk to save a few bucks if it comes to that when I buy my next
airplane ... which will hopefully be this year.
Matt
Matt Whiting
I really question then the claim that the takeoff and landing roll of
the 235/6 is even close to the 182. 15 knots difference in stall is
huge. I know I was amazed at the difference between my Skylane and the
Arrow. The stall isn't a lot higher, but Vx and Vy are much higher.
I'm also surprised the useful load is so close. I thought Jay said the
Pathfinder positively trounced the 182 in this regard?
Matt
Matt Barrow
The inverse of price is availability.
Matt Barrow
> Beech just announced they are lowering prices on the Bonanza and Baron.
> Now a typically outfitted glass panel Bo has a suggested retail of $574K
> down from $667K. The Baron goes from $1.186 million to $1.046 million.
>
Matt Barrow
>
> 1) The throw-over yoke. That's just downright weird--and, especially my
> first time out, I'm deliberately avoiding weird. "Baby steps."
Not to worry!
http://www.cygnet.aero/p_dualyoke.html
Dave
But with recently installed Mattison VG's and gap seals...
SERIOUS change in takeoff performance!.. POH is no good any more. Need
to nail down an all new set of numbers..
...Need a new page in the book.....
Been fun...
Dave
On 15 Jan 2007 20:31:08 -0800, "Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com>
wrote:
>> And here's a comparison for you. Have Jay take his plane out with two
>> seats in and 40 gallons. At a density altitude of 5500 my 182 would get
>> off the ground in 450 feet, it would land in the same distance. If you
>> can't or don't want to remove the rear seats then reduce the fuel load
>> accordingly.
>
>With the back seats removed (they pop out in seconds, without tools --
>a *very* handy option) and less than half tanks, I'd be hanging on the
>prop in about the same distance.
>
>Almost all of my flights are with four people, and full tanks.
>However, I clearly remember test-flying the plane with my 135-pound
>instructor, and about 25 gallons on board. 'Bout scared the crap outta
>myself, seeing only sky and an impossible deck angle on departure. I
>was whooping and hollering like an Indian, while my CFI just sat there
>laughing...
>
>Coming from a 150 horse Warrior, I thought I was flying a rocketship...
>
>;-)
Ken Reed
> Might as well look cool and go fast.
I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X
--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X
Douglas Paterson
>
> Douglas Paterson wrote:
>>
>> The further I get in this process, the more I'm leaning away from the
>> Comanche and toward the Trinidad
>
> You said the Bonanza was not the right plane for you but the Trinidad is?
> Holy Cow.
I don't understand this comment. You're obviously a Bonanza fan, and I'm
starting to gather you don't care for Trinidads--but am I missing something
objective here?
--
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)
Douglas Paterson
sub-thread--Dave's reply pretty much covered them all, so it's convenient to
do so.
"dave" <davesj...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o9ednQc3b78owDDY...@comcast.com...
> Doug,
> Don't throw out the bonanza for the wrong reasons.
> 1 - you can have a dual yoke or throw over yoke. No big deal. The throw
> over yoke very clever and extremely well made as is everything else in a
> Bonanza. If you don't want to throw it over you don't have to. It's
> like flying with any other other yoke but you'll be surprised at how
> smooth and robust the controls are.
I know every description I've read of Bonanzas have the theme of "well
built" and "solid"--no argument there. I'm also aware of the adapters
(right term?) that convert it to a dual-yoke system--but, that still leaves
a huge bar (two, now) out in front of the panel. Big deal? Probably not,
but it is a detractor (to me).
>
> 2 - I've heard this before about reversed controls. In my Bonanza there's
> really nothing that's odd or out of place so I'm not sure what it means.
> The flaps, gear, throttle, mixture and prop controls are all clearly
> identified. My citabria had the throttle on the left and the stick in my
> right hand. Now it's yoke in the left hand and throttle in the right hand
> as it is in most side by side airplanes.
Here again I'm going on what I've read. "Clearly identified" isn't the
point--my understanding is that both the engine controls and the flap/gear
handles are reversed from a standard setup.
>
> 3 - Expensive to buy? I can't imagine getting a decent tb20 for less than
> 150-200k. For that money you'll get a fantastic Bonanza. Costly to
> maintain. I'm really not there yet. So far I've bought two rubber flap
> bumpers for $2.70 each and had a attitude indicator rebuilt for $400.00.
> You point is a good one but remember, no matter what parts cost - labor is
> labor. Also keep in mind that much of the maintenance will be stuff that
> is common not Beech specific-engine, radio, instruments, tires, brakes,
> fluids, paint, upholstery, wire, lights, etc.
Not true. Later models, sure, but late-80s TB-20s are in the $120Ks--I even
saw a '92 model (w/ a GNS 530!) for $119.9K (it had already sold--I suspect
it had that Lycoming cam subject to the SB in it as a driver of the price).
Compared to similar vintage Bos, that's a lot less money, no? Understood on
the mx issues.
>
> Like most things, you should try one for yourself and see what you think.
> It sounds like you've been given advice from folks that don't own or don't
> like Bonanzas. I never thought I'd own one but I'm glad I let my friends
> talk me into at least flying one before I bought something else.
>
True again. Of course, if I could fly everything that's out there, I'd
never get around to buying.... :) I've never seen a Bo for rent--could be
I haven't looked hard enough (which is true), but they're hardly an FBO
staple....
> Regardless of the airplane you buy, one thing that was a real bonus for me
> was to hire a Bonanza expert. He helped me search for planes and spoke to
> the sellers and their mechanics on my behalf. I guess mechanics speak a
> special language. He's an AP/IA so he was able to get better information
> from other mechanics than I could have. Finally when we had what we
> thought was a winner. He did the pre-buy inspection for me.
Now THAT is probably the most key piece of advice yet! How did you go about
finding the "expert"? What were his qualifications (AP/IA--but, did you
look for someone w/ XXX experience working on Bos, or what)? I'm obviously
going to want to have a pre-buy done--I imagine that you paid more than you
would have for "just" a pre-buy, but less than you would have for a pre-buy
plus another person acting as your search agent.... Intriguing idea, I
think I want to use it!
> I enjoyed the search for my planes I hope you do too. Best of luck.
> Dave
> M35
>
Enjoying it, yes--but, also frustrated. Every time I feel like I've learned
enough to make a decision, another data point comes in that skews the
result! I certainly appreciate everyone's help and the overall discussion,
though....
Thanks!
Doug
Douglas Paterson
> The problem you're going to have with the Trinidad is parts. Nobody has
> them in stock, everything always has to be ordered. That takes time and
> expense. Plus they aren't very fast for what you're going to pay.
>
Please help me understand this. Are you saying that the Bo (for example)
has parts lying in stock at just about every FBO? I find that hard to
believe. The Socata folks are committed (they say) to a three-day maximum
delivery for parts not in stock (at their service centers--nearest to me is
Phoenix), with lots of stuff in stock "in the system" [source:
http://www.socata.org/html/upload.asp?File=Parts_Technical_Support_Socata_Aircraft.pdf].
Is this significantly sub-standard to the situation with Beech parts?
Very fast vs $$? I don't follow. The Trins cruise around 160ktas at
12-14gph; the highest numbers I've seen for the Bo is 168ktas at the same
fuel burn. Slower (marginally), yes. Do I have bad numbers, or have I
missed something?
Thanks!
Douglas Paterson
news:kr-2701F2.20...@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
>> > But they look cool!
>
>> Might as well look cool and go fast.
>
> I didn't realize that Mooneys were being considered.
Rim shot! :) Well done....
Seriously, I did consider Mooneys. Right up until I climbed into one and
felt like I was in a mummy bag.... Great airplanes, just too small for
me....
Douglas Paterson
news:12qqahu...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What is your acquisition cap? $80K? $100K $150K? $200K?
Not really written in stone, but.... I started w/ $100K; I've since revised
that to $150K (with an obvious desire to stay lower rather than higher!!).
>
> The reason I ask is, how about something brand new ...with two other
> partners?
>
Love the idea. Problem is, I move frequently--any partnership I got into
would have to dissolve or buy me out in a matter of a couple of years.
Primarily for that reason, I discarded the partnership idea early on.
Thanks for the thought, though!
Jay Honeck
> a Trinidad. :-)
Although our Pathfinder is a very fine looking plane, I'd have to give
the styling edge to the Trinidad.
But I wouldn't trade Atlas for one, even up.